Head Honcho Posted 29 November 2005 Posted 29 November 2005 Can anybody tell me wtf is going on? The Lord Chief Justice has instructed Judges not to send young muggers to prison if their attack isn't too vicious. How can a mugging not be a vicious attack? On top of that 186 candidates for the Avon and Somerset Police have been refused even an interview! Why? Because they are White Males! So if your a non-white mugger you know where to go for a job!
Nationwider Posted 29 November 2005 Posted 29 November 2005 I suppose there's a difference between some chancer swiping the phone out of someone's hand, and at the other end of the spectrum, holding a knife to someone's throat. It's still a stupid thing to say in public, though. Go ahead, muggers, do NOT go directly to jail, collect a £200 phone instead. As for Avon and Somerset Police, well with the Bloods and the Crips infiltrating Weston-super-Mare and Frome, I'm sure they need more brothers on the streets. They'll be making New Jack City II there, mark my words. An absolute nonsense. You just pick the most able people, regardless of their orientation.
Guest seanfox778 Posted 29 November 2005 Posted 29 November 2005 this is slightly off topic but i cannot believe arnold schwartzanegger is reconsidering the death penalty in calafornia just because snoop dogg asked him too because his friend is due for execution
Thracian Posted 29 November 2005 Posted 29 November 2005 I suppose there's a difference between some chancer swiping the phone out of someone's hand, and at the other end of the spectrum, holding a knife to someone's throat. It's still a stupid thing to say in public, though. Go ahead, muggers, do NOT go directly to jail, collect a £200 phone instead. As for Avon and Somerset Police, well with the Bloods and the Crips infiltrating Weston-super-Mare and Frome, I'm sure they need more brothers on the streets. They'll be making New Jack City II there, mark my words. An absolute nonsense. You just pick the most able people, regardless of their orientation. I mentioned this happening in the Metropolitan Police force months ago. And people say there's no anti-white racism! This sort of thing creates so much resentment - and rightly so - but the ghastly thing is, it is everywhere. Ironically, your last sentence was echoed loud and clear by an Asian community leader in the paper I read. He too wanted people judged on merit (as I do) so who ARE these bureaucrats who champion blatant unfairness. I hope each one of the 200 rejected whites sues the Police Authority (as was suggested as being likely) and that they get a fair and sympathetic hearing. If, of course, the judge(s) haven't already been doctored too according to Blair's socio/political requirements.
Sly Posted 29 November 2005 Posted 29 November 2005 this is slightly off topic but i cannot believe arnold schwartzanegger is reconsidering the death penalty in calafornia just because snoop dogg asked him too because his friend is due for execution YOU WHAT?!?!!?!?
Guest seanfox778 Posted 29 November 2005 Posted 29 November 2005 YOU WHAT?!?!!?!? i read it on sky news text
Jon the Hat Posted 29 November 2005 Posted 29 November 2005 I mentioned this happening in the Metropolitan Police force months ago. And people say there's no anti-white racism! This sort of thing creates so much resentment - and right so - but the ghastly thing is, it is everywhere. Ironically, your last sentence was echoed loud and clear by an Asian community leader in the paper I read. He too wanted people judged on merit (as I do) so who ARE these bureaucrats who champion blatant unfairness. I hope each one of the 200 rejected whites sues the Police Authority (as was suggested as being likely) and that they get a fair and sympathetic hearing. If, of course, the judge(s) haven't already been doctored too according to Blair's socio/political requirements. Police forces are right to try and have the ethnic make up of their force match the population they are policing. It is no ones interests to have a white only police force. That said if there are vacancies and no enthnic minority applicants who are suitable, are you better off having a shortage of officers or a skewed ethnic mix? While employment tribumals base their decisions partly on the actual ethnic mix of your employees - ie if you don't have non-white employees and someone sues you for disrimination this is evidence against you - then they are encouraged to employ less capable people because of their Ethnic group. I'm not saying in any way people from any ethnic group are more or less suited to a police job, just law of averages says if you have 100 white and 10 black applicants, you are ten times more likely to find a suitable white applicant than a black one.
Cobbo Posted 29 November 2005 Posted 29 November 2005 Muggers that knick not only your wallets but newly bought booze and an eighth of another substance deserve to go down! My brother was mugged a good few months ago now and thankfully these people have gone into detention centres. A gang of youths bringing terror to the City centre preying on innosent victims, scumbags. Send 'em all down.
Guest Posted 29 November 2005 Posted 29 November 2005 Can anybody tell me wtf is going on? Prisons etc are becoming overcrowded. Some people also believe incarcerating young offenders makes them more likely to reoffend. Before anyone thinks of having a go at me, this is not my point of view. On the plus side, men won't be able to use jealousy as provocation, so guys, if you come home and find your missus in bed with another man, and you lose your rag and throttle the pair of them, you will receive a longer sentence than before.
Babylon Posted 29 November 2005 Posted 29 November 2005 On the plus side, men won't be able to use jealousy as provocation, so guys, if you come home and find your missus in bed with another man, and you lose your rag and throttle the pair of them, you will receive a longer sentence than before. I'd just chop his cock off.
Fox 4 Life Posted 29 November 2005 Posted 29 November 2005 this is slightly off topic but i cannot believe arnold schwartzanegger is reconsidering the death penalty in calafornia just because snoop dogg asked him too because his friend is due for execution That is completely taken out of context, the real story is Stan "Tookie" Williams, who was the founder of the crips. He has been on Death Row for 20+years and is scheduled to be executed 13th Dec 2005. But he is completely reformed and has won a nobel prize for his work eith stopping youngsters from going down the same path. He has written loads of books for children and also made huge steps in reconcilling the problems between bloods and crips. Therefore it isnt just "one of snoops friends" but a real case for clemency!
Guest Posted 29 November 2005 Posted 29 November 2005 I'd just chop his cock off. Funnily, Mr Lisa has been told that's what will happen to him if caught with another woman.
TrickyTrev Posted 29 November 2005 Posted 29 November 2005 The Lord Chief Justice has instructed Judges not to send young muggers to prison if their attack isn't too vicious. How can a mugging not be a vicious attack? Prinsons are notonly over crowded but also widely regarded as ineffective. In dact they arw indisutably ineffective. If it wasn't for the political consqquences a lot less people would go to jail as it fails in its primary purposes. To protect the British public, act as a deterrent for criminals and to rahbilitate prisoners. I agree with the Lord Chief Justice that prison may not be the answer, so long as he has proposes a workable altenative. As I have not seen the full statement I can't comment. On top of that 186 candidates for the Avon and Somerset Police have been refused even an interview! Why? Because they are White Males! The police force has a perception of being institutionally racist (thats their own fault and no one elses). Ethnic minorities look at the police force as "us and them." This makes it extremely dififcult for the police force to police ethnic minority communities. To help the police gain the respect they need and the place in the community they should have there a policy of positive discrimination. It may not be perfect, but its a pragmatic attempt to make things better. In some senses they are holding their hand sout and saying that skin coulour is an attribute when therying to bridge extremely sore race relations and dispell an image of an institutionally racist force. I am not sure what moaning about it achieves.
Fox 4 Life Posted 29 November 2005 Posted 29 November 2005 Prinsons are notonly over crowded but also widely regarded as ineffective. In dact they arw indisutably ineffective. If it wasn't for the political consqquences a lot less people would go to jail as it fails in its primary purposes. To protect the British public, act as a deterrent for criminals and to rahbilitate prisoners. I agree with the Lord Chief Justice that prison may not be the answer, so long as he has proposes a workable altenative. As I have not seen the full statement I can't comment. The police force has a perception of being institutionally racist (thats their own fault and no one elses). Ethnic minorities look at the police force as "us and them." This makes it extremely dififcult for the police force to police ethnic minority communities. To help the police gain the respect they need and the place in the community they should have there a policy of positive discrimination. It may not be perfect, but its a pragmatic attempt to make things better. In some senses they are holding their hand sout and saying that skin coulour is an attribute when therying to bridge extremely sore race relations and dispell an image of an institutionally racist force. I am not sure what moaning about it achieves. I do agree with you to an extent, but what annoys me more than anything is the fact that this is actually racial discrimination, and just because its against white people doesnt make it non racist. People dont seem to realise but racism is as bad if not more rife against white people than anynone else
Head Honcho Posted 29 November 2005 Author Posted 29 November 2005 Prinsons are notonly over crowded but also widely regarded as ineffective. In dact they arw indisutably ineffective. If it wasn't for the political consqquences a lot less people would go to jail as it fails in its primary purposes. To protect the British public, act as a deterrent for criminals and to rahbilitate prisoners. I agree with the Lord Chief Justice that prison may not be the answer, so long as he has proposes a workable altenative. As I have not seen the full statement I can't comment. The police force has a perception of being institutionally racist (thats their own fault and no one elses). Ethnic minorities look at the police force as "us and them." This makes it extremely dififcult for the police force to police ethnic minority communities. To help the police gain the respect they need and the place in the community they should have there a policy of positive discrimination. It may not be perfect, but its a pragmatic attempt to make things better. In some senses they are holding their hand sout and saying that skin coulour is an attribute when therying to bridge extremely sore race relations and dispell an image of an institutionally racist force. I am not sure what moaning about it achieves. Having read your past posts I would have thought you'd agree with this being wrong. Non-whites shouldn't have the monopoly on playing the racist card! ......and as for not sending muggers to jail what do you suggest ? If we made jail tougher they'd soon get the message! We should bring in the 3 strikes and your in for life rule. Radical I know but if your law abiding it shouldn't worry you!
TrickyTrev Posted 29 November 2005 Posted 29 November 2005 Having read your past posts I would have thought you'd agree with this being wrong.Non-whites shouldn't have the monopoly on playing the racist card! I find hatred of other races abhorent and in the main part cheap. I see positive discrimination as a neceassary evil in order sort out the shambles that is our police force. It does not sit easily with me, because I don't think race should eb an issue, but I am being pragmatic. ......and as for not sending muggers to jail what do you suggest ? If we made jail tougher they'd soon get the message! Jail is tough, you are away from your faimly and friends and treated like a school child. Its not torture or a dungeon but it is not the lap of luxury people seem to like to portray it as. Personally I like communitty service and cerfews as chepaer and more effective methods. However, I'm not a criminologist and I do understand that all cas eis different. Some people are just plain bad and are so malevolent they are a threat to others. For them, jail is necessarry. We should bring in the 3 strikes and your in for life rule. Radical I know but if your law abiding it shouldn't worry you! We already have harsher sentencing for re-offenders, which I agree with. I don't agree with a unilateral approach that you suggest, you could get the scenario where a man is jailed fo life for a minor offence. Nothing wrong with the principal of coming down hard on persistant offenders though.
Guest seanfox778 Posted 29 November 2005 Posted 29 November 2005 That is completely taken out of context, the real story is Stan "Tookie" Williams, who was the founder of the crips. He has been on Death Row for 20+years and is scheduled to be executed 13th Dec 2005. But he is completely reformed and has won a nobel prize for his work eith stopping youngsters from going down the same path. He has written loads of books for children and also made huge steps in reconcilling the problems between bloods and crips. Therefore it isnt just "one of snoops friends" but a real case for clemency! sorry i have been misled i apologize
Steven Posted 29 November 2005 Posted 29 November 2005 Having read your past posts I would have thought you'd agree with this being wrong. Non-whites shouldn't have the monopoly on playing the racist card! ......and as for not sending muggers to jail what do you suggest ? If we made jail tougher they'd soon get the message! We should bring in the 3 strikes and your in for life rule. Radical I know but if your law abiding it shouldn't worry you! You can pay extra tax for that proposal.
Head Honcho Posted 29 November 2005 Author Posted 29 November 2005 You can pay extra tax for that proposal. One quarter of California prisoners are serving life terms under the three-strikes law, at a cost so far of about $8.1 billion. More than half that amount was spent to warehouse offenders whose third strike was not a violent crime. Just a snippet of how much it has cost California in the 11 years since it was introduced. I know this is probably going to far but sending them to prison just isn't enough anymore, it's supposed to be a deterent, but most of the crime these days is carried out by re-offenders.
Guest Posted 30 November 2005 Posted 30 November 2005 You used to have to pay for your own imprisonment, many many years ago.
Thracian Posted 30 November 2005 Posted 30 November 2005 Police forces are right to try and have the ethnic make up of their force match the population they are policing. It is no ones interests to have a white only police force. That said if there are vacancies and no enthnic minority applicants who are suitable, are you better off having a shortage of officers or a skewed ethnic mix? While employment tribumals base their decisions partly on the actual ethnic mix of your employees - ie if you don't have non-white employees and someone sues you for disrimination this is evidence against you - then they are encouraged to employ less capable people because of their Ethnic group. I'm not saying in any way people from any ethnic group are more or less suited to a police job, just law of averages says if you have 100 white and 10 black applicants, you are ten times more likely to find a suitable white applicant than a black one. Can you imagine picking our football team like that. Right lads there's gotta be 5 whites, three Asians and three Afro/Caribbeans's. Football clubs pick their teams on merit (apart from a few weird Levein decisions that he'd need to explain himself) and where is there more interracial harmony than in football clubs. Would your argument mean that if I live in a predominently white neighbourhood I'd have the right not to have to deal with black police officers? Or is it just the Asians?Afros who should have their own ethnic law officers? As for your last paragraph: why's that?. Depends on the 10 black applicants. If you had 100 white athletes and 10 blacks chasing a place in a 100m sprint team I know where my money would be. What you say is like saying if you've picked red at roulette 24 times and lost than it's more likely to be black the 25th time when, in fact, as I've sometimes discovered to my cost, the odds are exactly the same. Chose people on merit I say. Everyone gets comparable education opportunities. You're getting to the stage in this country where whites don't feel they've got the chance of getting a worthwhile job anywhere cos of all the vet-out clauses and, like I say, it is causing more and more resentment and more and more people (who are qualified enough) to move aboad.
Steven Posted 30 November 2005 Posted 30 November 2005 One quarter of California prisoners are serving life terms under the three-strikes law, at a cost so far of about $8.1 billion. More than half that amount was spent to warehouse offenders whose third strike was not a violent crime. Just a snippet of how much it has cost California in the 11 years since it was introduced. I know this is probably going to far but sending them to prison just isn't enough anymore, it's supposed to be a deterent, but most of the crime these days is carried out by re-offenders. I think you are missing the point about modern Crime and Punishment. There is no sense nowadays that Law and Order includes prevention as a central plank of policy. One only has to look at CCTV and how people rely on it without realising that any benefit from it comes after the crime has been committed and does nothing to prevent the crime in the first place. If you are in doubt about this, ask how much Crime has increased since the first introduction of cameras back in the early 80's and how much Crime has increased since the Right-Wing let's get tough policies espoused by this and another Government, came into being. Indeed think about Douglas Hurd who asked a couple of months ago why if tougher sentences worked, as espoused, is the Prison population at record levels? Also Michael Howard saying "Prison works" at a Tory Party conference. As long as the emphasis in Government and Police circles is about punishment and not about prevention then Crime will continue to rise. I am struck by a couple of things. The fact that neither of the main parties would have a Law and Order policy if there was no crime, i.e. they need to have crime in order to have a Law and Order policy and of course as the UK politician loves to scare the voter the need for crime is part of that armoury. Finally I am reminded about a study from the US dating back to the 60's which showed that kids in the poor areas of Chicago who went to pre-school cost up to 18x less than a kid who did not as the kid who did not was more likely to indulge in anti-social behaviour. This is however not politically sexy. It is only recently that pre-school places for all kids has become Government policy. Ask yourself why it has taken so long?
Katy Posted 30 November 2005 Posted 30 November 2005 I think you are missing the point about modern Crime and Punishment. There is no sense nowadays that Law and Order includes prevention as a central plank of policy. One only has to look at CCTV and how people rely on it without realising that any benefit from it comes after the crime has been committed and does nothing to prevent the crime in the first place. If you are in doubt about this, ask how much Crime has increased since the first introduction of cameras back in the early 80's and how much Crime has increased since the Right-Wing let's get tough policies espoused by this and another Government, came into being. Indeed think about Douglas Hurd who asked a couple of months ago why if tougher sentences worked, as espoused, is the Prison population at record levels? Also Michael Howard saying "Prison works" at a Tory Party conference. As long as the emphasis in Government and Police circles is about punishment and not about prevention then Crime will continue to rise. I am struck by a couple of things. The fact that neither of the main parties would have a Law and Order policy if there was no crime, i.e. they need to have crime in order to have a Law and Order policy and of course as the UK politician loves to scare the voter the need for crime is part of that armoury. Finally I am reminded about a study from the US dating back to the 60's which showed that kids in the poor areas of Chicago who went to pre-school cost up to 18x less than a kid who did not as the kid who did not was more likely to indulge in anti-social behaviour. This is however not politically sexy. It is only recently that pre-school places for all kids has become Government policy. Ask yourself why it has taken so long? Just finished studying that as part of my course. I could go on about the rational choice theory and all that jazz but im completely sick to the back teeth of it to be honest. Its always going to be a contentious issue and everyones going their own take on it but prisons are overcrowded and if theres some kind of rehab etc that actually WORKS then it should be worth a shot, most muggers are opportunists anyway IMO.
Head Honcho Posted 30 November 2005 Author Posted 30 November 2005 Being sent to prison these day's isn't a punishment. We need to make prison a place where you would not want to return to, and i don't mean by making prisoners life's a misery, it should be a place of rehabilitation, and all prisoners should be assessed before they leave and if they are deemed not to be rehabilitated, then regardless of time served they should not be released until they are. There are too many crime's being carried out by ex- I was going to use the word ex-offenders but how can you be an ex-offender! Too many crimes are being carried out by the same offenders, and something needs to be done about it.
Steven Posted 30 November 2005 Posted 30 November 2005 Being sent to prison these day's isn't a punishment. We need to make prison a place where you would not want to return to, and i don't mean by making prisoners life's a misery, it should be a place of rehabilitation, and all prisoners should be assessed before they leave and if they are deemed not to be rehabilitated, then regardless of time served they should not be released until they are. There are too many crime's being carried out by ex- I was going to use the word ex-offenders but how can you be an ex-offender! Too many crimes are being carried out by the same offenders, and something needs to be done about it. How does this help the person who has already suffered at the hands of a criminal?
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.