For the Brits here

Pickle · 06-20-2006, 02:04 PM

I'd like to hear from you guys if this is a load of crap. I got this in an email stating it was pulled from the Wall Street Journal. Regardless of weather or not it actually appeared in the WSJ I want to hear what our neighbors across the pond have to say.

Mad Dogs and Englishmen By JOYCE LEE MALCOLM
June 17, 2006; Page A11
With Great Britain now the world's most violent developed country, the British government has hit upon a way to reduce the number of cases before the courts: Police have been instructed to let off with a caution burglars and those who admit responsibility for some 60 other crimes ranging from assault and arson to sex with an underage girl. That is, no jail time, no fine, no community service, no court appearance. It's cheap, quick, saves time and money, and best of all the offenders won't tax an already overcrowded jail system. Not everyone will be treated so leniently. A new surveillance system promises to hunt down anyone exceeding the speed limit. Using excessive force against a burglar or mugger will earn you a conviction for assault or, if you seriously harm him, a long sentence. Tony Martin, the Norfolk farmer jailed for killing one burglar and wounding another during the seventh break-in at his rural home, was denied parole because he posed a threat to burglars. The career burglar whom Mr. Martin wounded got out early. Using a cap pistol, as an elderly woman did to scare off a gang of youths, will bring you to court for putting someone in fear. Recently, police tried to stop David Collinson from entering his burning home to rescue his asthmatic wife. He refused to obey and, brandishing a toy pistol, dashed into the blaze. Minutes later he returned with his wife and dog and apologized to the police. Not good enough. In April Mr. Collinson was sentenced to a year in prison for being aggressive towards the officers and brandishing the toy pistol. Still, at least he won't be sharing his cell with an arsonist or thief. How did things come to a pass where law-abiding citizens are treated as criminals and criminals as victims? A giant step was the 1953 Prevention of Crime Act, making it illegal to carry any article for an offensive purpose; any item carried for self-defense was automatically an offensive weapon and the carrier is guilty until proven innocent. At the time a parliamentarian protested that "The object of a weapon was to assist weakness to cope with strength and it is this ability that the bill was framed to destroy." The government countered that the public should be discouraged "from going about with offensive weapons in their pockets; it is the duty of society to protect them."
The trouble is that society cannot and does not protect them. Yet successive governments have insisted protection be left to the professionals, meanwhile banning all sorts of weapons, from firearms to chemical sprays. They hope to add toy or replica guns to the list along with kitchen knives with points. Other legislation has limited self-defense to what seems reasonable to a court much later.
Although British governments insist upon sole responsibility for protecting individuals, for ideological and economic reasons they have adopted a lenient approach toward offenders. Because prisons are expensive and don't reform their residents, fewer offenders are incarcerated. Those who are get sharply reduced sentences, and serve just half of these. Still, with crime rates rising, prisons are overcrowded and additional jail space will not be available anytime soon. The public learned in April that among convicts released early to ease overcrowding were violent or sex offenders serving mandatory life sentences who were freed after as little as 15 months.
The government's duty to protect the public has been compromised by other economies. Police forces are smaller than those of America and Europe and have been consolidated, leaving 70% of English villages without a police presence. Police are so hard-pressed that the Humberside force announced in March they no longer investigate less serious crimes unless they are racist or homophobic. Among crimes not being investigated: theft, criminal damage, common assault, harassment and non-domestic burglary. As for more serious crime, the unarmed police are wary of responding to an emergency where the offender is armed. The Thames Valley Police waited nearly seven hours to enter Julia Pemberton's home after she telephoned from the closet where she was hiding from her estranged and armed husband. They arrived once the danger to them had passed, but after those who had pleaded for their help were past all help. To be fair, under the Blair government a host of actions have been initiated to bring about more convictions. At the end of its 2003 session Parliament repealed the 800-year-old guarantee against double jeopardy. Now anyone acquitted of a serious crime can be retried if "new and compelling evidence" is brought forward. Parliament tinkered with the definition of "new" to make that burden easier to meet. The test for "new" in these criminal cases, Lord Neill pointed out, will be lower than "is used habitually in civil cases. In a civil case, one would have to show that the new evidence was not reasonably available on the previous occasion. There is no such requirement here." Parliament was so excited by the benefits of chucking the ancient prohibition that it extended the repeal of double jeopardy from murder to cases of rape, manslaughter, kidnapping, drug-trafficking and some 20 other serious crimes. For good measure it made the new act retroactive. Henceforth, no one who has been, or will be, tried and acquitted of a serious crime can feel confident he will not be tried again, and again. To make the prosecutor's task still easier, he is now permitted to use hearsay evidence -- goodbye to confronting witnesses -- to introduce a defendant's prior record, and the number of jury trials is to be reduced. Still, the government has helped the homeowner by sponsoring a law "to prevent homeowners being sued by intruders who injure themselves while breaking in." It may be crass to point out that the British people, stripped of their ability to protect themselves and of other ancient rights and left to the mercy of criminals, have gotten the worst of both worlds. Still, as one citizen, referring to the new policy of letting criminals off with a caution, suggested: "Perhaps it would be easier and safer for the honest citizens of the U.K. to move into the prisons and the criminals to be let out." Ms. Malcolm is professor of history at Bentley College and author of, inter alia, "Guns and Violence: The English Experience" (Harvard University Press, 2002).

Rick_the_new_guy · 06-20-2006, 02:21 PM

dunno for sure, but it has got to be a load of dung. It must be!! please someone confirm this!!

**Rock** · 06-20-2006, 02:41 PM

Unfortuantley its all true. I dont want to babble on but, Ever since labour came to power in 1997 this country has fallen sharply.

Ok our economy may be good, and fair dos, labour saved us form the then conservatives, which were failing in many sectors. IE economy, strikes blah blah blah

Now our police are almost non existence unless theres a local parade in a town where all of a sudden there are 500 police staff, stood around twidling there thumbs wondering why the hell are we here for.

My friends sister is police officer she has said the police do 80% paperwork to 20% out on the beat! They dislike seeing small offences in the street, because they know if they arrest/reprimand they got 2 hours back at the office filling out paper work for something trival!

Also this country has gone politicaly correct mad. For example, its an offence in some countys to fly a St georges flag incase it upsets the muslims/aslyum seekers/terroists etc

Im gonna cap this off now before i start going on one. But it is true, our country has/is going down the pan from schools, nhs,jails,jobs and whatever else you might like to think of.

Backlash-7 · 06-20-2006, 04:30 PM

Holy $#!& and I thought the US was crappy.

Wulfyn · 06-20-2006, 07:02 PM

Quote:

With Great Britain now the world's most violent developed country, the British government has hit upon a way to reduce the number of cases before the courts: Police have been instructed to let off with a caution burglars and those who admit responsibility for some 60 other crimes ranging from assault and arson to sex with an underage girl. That is, no jail time, no fine, no community service, no court appearance. It's cheap, quick, saves time and money, and best of all the offenders won't tax an already overcrowded jail system.

The problem here lies not with the police but with the courts. I think the article has put a bit of spin on the exact crimes however. Assault as a pub brawl is different to beating the crap out of a random guy in a dark alley for no reason. Sex with an underage girl could be a 15 year old boy sleeping with his 15 year old girlfriend as opposed to something more akin to paedophilia. For these cases it is likely that nothing will happen in the courts anyhow - maybe just community service or one of these ASBOs. I've not heard anything to suggest that serious crimes would be ignored.

Quote:

Not everyone will be treated so leniently. A new surveillance system promises to hunt down anyone exceeding the speed limit.

The main problem here is the current government's love of having targets for everything. Hospitals, police, schools, everythign has a target. If the police are short on their targets then you can be sure they will try to make it up by traffic offences. Static speed cameras are not so bad as they are well sign posted (in fact i'd be willing to bet that at least 1/4 of all UK traffic signs are speed camera warnings), but they will try and get you on any offence possible in order to appear like they are doing their jobs. Also the money gained from traffic fines do not go to the police but lthe councils, so they are the big driving push behind this. Of course the extra cameras means more work for police for no more resources.

Quote:

Using excessive force against a burglar or mugger will earn you a conviction for assault or, if you seriously harm him, a long sentence. Tony Martin, the Norfolk farmer jailed for killing one burglar and wounding another during the seventh break-in at his rural home, was denied parole because he posed a threat to burglars. The career burglar whom Mr. Martin wounded got out early.

Dead true this story - and an absolute joke. There was a large public outcry over this and much debate over the right of someone to defend their own property.

Quote:

Using a cap pistol, as an elderly woman did to scare off a gang of youths, will bring you to court for putting someone in fear. Recently, police tried to stop David Collinson from entering his burning home to rescue his asthmatic wife. He refused to obey and, brandishing a toy pistol, dashed into the blaze. Minutes later he returned with his wife and dog and apologized to the police. Not good enough. In April Mr. Collinson was sentenced to a year in prison for being aggressive towards the officers and brandishing the toy pistol. Still, at least he won't be sharing his cell with an arsonist or thief. How did things come to a pass where law-abiding citizens are treated as criminals and criminals as victims?

This is the real problem tho - these citizens are not law abiding. There has been a larger reaction to incidences in the UK of people shooting up schools than say in America, because whereas both are equally heinous crimes in the UK there is not the backdrop of gun related crime as the US has, for example. I'm not going to get into gun control issues, but this is a fundamental difference between the two cultures. Now all 'gun-like' objects are likely to be banned. This is not just decommissioned weapons that could be converted back, this includes replicas and even airsoft guns. The idea is that you cannot tell the difference so they can be used for gun related crime. Whilst all the banal laws are passed in this age-of-fear people who do not follow the law to the letter are likely to be punished. Who are the police to tell a guy he cannot re-enter his own house to rescue his wife?

Quote:

A giant step was the 1953 Prevention of Crime Act, making it illegal to carry any article for an offensive purpose; any item carried for self-defense was automatically an offensive weapon and the carrier is guilty until proven innocent. At the time a parliamentarian protested that "The object of a weapon was to assist weakness to cope with strength and it is this ability that the bill was framed to destroy." The government countered that the public should be discouraged "from going about with offensive weapons in their pockets; it is the duty of society to protect them."
The trouble is that society cannot and does not protect them. Yet successive governments have insisted protection be left to the professionals, meanwhile banning all sorts of weapons, from firearms to chemical sprays. They hope to add toy or replica guns to the list along with kitchen knives with points. Other legislation has limited self-defense to what seems reasonable to a court much later.

This is the biggest difference. As far as I see it the US constitutional right to bear arms is not as important (philosophically) for you to defend yourself against another person as it is for you to tbe able to defend yourself against your own goverment or a wicked regime. In the UK the direction is the opposite. Fair enough there is nothing I have to say that can prove that this is the wrong way of doing things, but when you go to such stupid lengths as to ban anything that has ever been used in committing a crime then you are missing the point.

I have two swords. One is a 4 1/2 ft katana, and the other a 1 1/2 foot tanto. Both are very sharp and easily able to kill someone. But then I could also kill someone by pushing them in front of a bus. If I did this should busses be banned? Should everyone have their hands chopped off to they cannot push another person? Now I'd be fully in favour of having the swords registered compulsory and for people who have committed certain crimes from being prevented of owning such items (much in the same way that people who drink and drive are banned from driving). But to just ban something doesn't even come close to addressing the problem.

Quote:

Although British governments insist upon sole responsibility for protecting individuals, for ideological and economic reasons they have adopted a lenient approach toward offenders. Because prisons are expensive and don't reform their residents, fewer offenders are incarcerated. Those who are get sharply reduced sentences, and serve just half of these. Still, with crime rates rising, prisons are overcrowded and additional jail space will not be available anytime soon. The public learned in April that among convicts released early to ease overcrowding were violent or sex offenders serving mandatory life sentences who were freed after as little as 15 months.

I'd be very interested in hearing the evidence for this claim, as I am sure it is crap. There has been debate on this recently regarding some long or life sentences having a 'not considered for parole before' terms that are too low (by public opinion). However often these terms are due to some sort of negotiation or guilty plea. For example cases of paedophilia can apparently be very hard to convict on if there is scant or no forensic evidence to back it up and the person was not caught in the act. In these cases pleading guilty heavily reduces the jail term in order to get some punishment on the criminal. It's not ideal, but philosophically it can be necessary - would you believe nothing but the word of a 10 year old 100% of the time? Difficult.

Quote:

The government's duty to protect the public has been compromised by other economies. Police forces are smaller than those of America and Europe and have been consolidated, leaving 70% of English villages without a police presence. Police are so hard-pressed that the Humberside force announced in March they no longer investigate less serious crimes unless they are racist or homophobic.

Not sure of the stats here, or how they collect them. There are a lot of very small rural villages, which are basically a pub and 5-10 houses. Now stick 100 of those within 10 miles of a town, and have the only police station at the town. Stats are tricky things. Certainy i see cop cars all over the bloody place. Also we have special constables (volunteer part-timers) and community officers.

Quote:

Among crimes not being investigated: theft, criminal damage, common assault, harassment and non-domestic burglary. As for more serious crime, the unarmed police are wary of responding to an emergency where the offender is armed. The Thames Valley Police waited nearly seven hours to enter Julia Pemberton's home after she telephoned from the closet where she was hiding from her estranged and armed husband. They arrived once the danger to them had passed, but after those who had pleaded for their help were past all help.

I am not sure but again I think the reporter is maybe distorting the truth. At the time I never heard anything to suggest that the police waited for the situation to be safe before entering, just that the criticisms were levied at how long it took for them to respond. I recommend people to research this story themselves to get their own view on what happened, but it is likely that she was killed shortly after the 16 minute phone call to the police ended. In fact to throw an anecdote into this I had some guys who lived in the opposite corridor to me in my halls of residence a few years ago. Not the brightest of guys they all donned balaclavas and toy plastic guns and drove to a local supermarket, ran in and around a few aisles, left and drove back. Within 30 minutes of them returning we had armed police in our halls.

Quote:

To be fair, under the Blair government a host of actions have been initiated to bring about more convictions. At the end of its 2003 session Parliament repealed the 800-year-old guarantee against double jeopardy. Now anyone acquitted of a serious crime can be retried if "new and compelling evidence" is brought forward. Parliament tinkered with the definition of "new" to make that burden easier to meet. The test for "new" in these criminal cases, Lord Neill pointed out, will be lower than "is used habitually in civil cases. In a civil case, one would have to show that the new evidence was not reasonably available on the previous occasion. There is no such requirement here." Parliament was so excited by the benefits of chucking the ancient prohibition that it extended the repeal of double jeopardy from murder to cases of rape, manslaughter, kidnapping, drug-trafficking and some 20 other serious crimes. For good measure it made the new act retroactive. Henceforth, no one who has been, or will be, tried and acquitted of a serious crime can feel confident he will not be tried again, and again. To make the prosecutor's task still easier, he is now permitted to use hearsay evidence -- goodbye to confronting witnesses -- to introduce a defendant's prior record, and the number of jury trials is to be reduced.

For yet a more shocking read go check out the Terrorism Act.

Quote:

Still, the government has helped the homeowner by sponsoring a law "to prevent homeowners being sued by intruders who injure themselves while breaking in." It may be crass to point out that the British people, stripped of their ability to protect themselves and of other ancient rights and left to the mercy of criminals, have gotten the worst of both worlds. Still, as one citizen, referring to the new policy of letting criminals off with a caution, suggested: "Perhaps it would be easier and safer for the honest citizens of the U.K. to move into the prisons and the criminals to be let out." Ms. Malcolm is professor of history at Bentley College and author of, inter alia, "Guns and Violence: The English Experience" (Harvard University Press, 2002).

I wouldn't, personally, use the term stripped here.

Decent article, but too much spin for me to take seriously.

Obi · 06-20-2006, 08:13 PM

Who can you blame for this mess?

These decisions are being made by faceless suits who rarely would take sole responsibility for these desicions.

It makes me so angry. Who are we supposed to confront about the way the country is going? We can't blame Tony Blair personally about burglars being able to sue thier victims. Who is the guy that I should moan at about my Gran going to court for using a cap gun?

The problem is a general attitude that is spreading. There are so many different things that are turning this country into a place where everyone sues each other and passes the blame.

Every second advertisment on TV is telling you how to get money from your employers if you hurt yourself. I'll give you some examples of the scenarios that are being used to advertise these "no win no fee" companies.
Each advertisment has a reinactment of a situation where some idiot is awarded thousands of pounds for hurting themsleves because "it wasn't thier fault". In on case a wome picks up a crate of bottles from a shelve above her head. The crate is wet and she ends up twisting her arm. She is awarded lots of money.

On another advert some builder person attempts to pick up some heavy equipment. He hurts is back and is recieves compensation because he hadn't been given saftey training.

Another guy is fixing a fire alarm system. The alarm system is high up on the outside wall so he must use a ladder. He falls because he was "given the wrong ladder". He recieves compensation.

It's this "money for nothing" attitude that everyone is adopting that is causing our society to go down the pan. Everyone wants money for themselves. A good way to get money for yourself is to sue someone. People don't want to be sued so they introduce these insane measures to cover thier back from being sued.

My mum is a teacher at a Primary school ( kids under 11). She is responsible for making sure her class doesn't get sun burn. If a kid gets sun burn my mum has to take the responsibility. What the hell is up with that?

I have found that I as I go through life there a certain times when I realise and understand a great truth. One of thes great truths is, in general, people...are...stupid.

Whoa, I ranted a little bit there. I think I should be Prime Minister.

-0b1

**CingularDuality** · 06-21-2006, 04:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wulfyn

Decent article, but too much spin for me to take seriously.

Really? Is the spirit of the article correct?

If you're in your home, sleeping with the wife and kids, and you hear a noise from downstairs, you investigate and find what appears to be a burglar, that advances on you once he realizes you've seen him, what are your options? Can you defend yourself with your swords? Can you defend yourself with a large kitchen knife? A cricket bat? A kitchen knife? Can you beat him with your bare hands? Harsh words? Are you allowed to use those?

Sure, I'm getting silly, but, really, what's next?

Wulfyn · 06-21-2006, 01:42 PM

Well to clarify the article does bring up some very important and salient points, and I hope I have referred to them as such. For example the farmer that was convicted for defending his home was outrageous.

However there is also a lot of crap that has been put in there to butter the rest of it up. Unfortuantely when journalism seeks to falsify or exaggerate aspects of stories in order to put an angle on it that the journalist wants and not that the public wants (assuming the public always wants the truth) then you have to start to question the motivation of the journalist. Is he trying to report on a story, or maybe he hates the UK and is trying to slag it off.

When the motivation of the journalist comes into serious question then I think you have to be very cautious about reading too much into the article. For an answer to your question Cing, you are much better off referencing the original story instead of using the rest of this story to find a marker in how things are.

Rick_the_new_guy · 06-22-2006, 12:11 AM

intriguing, this age of suing each other and not taking responsibility for your own actions, or kids, is established else were in the world.

If this stuff continues there is a possibilty for a sudden aliner political shift for real tough laws that leads to fascism.

I have watched the movie V for Vendetta. The movie took place like 18 years from now with a fascist nation in England and a Cival War in the U.S.A.
This slow proccess of giving villians breaks and the victums more heart aches will continue until other political global issues rise and again a sudden political shift will possilby happen. This may be orchestrated by master minds seeking power. I.e. a Sith Lord of sorts.

The future is one of my biggest motivators to keep up my health. I want to see this chicken Excrement experiment ended all ready.

**DudeMan** · 06-22-2006, 02:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rock

Unfortuantley its all true. I dont want to babble on but, Ever since labour came to power in 1997 this country has fallen sharply.

Ok our economy may be good, and fair dos, labour saved us form the then conservatives, which were failing in many sectors. IE economy, strikes blah blah blah

Now our police are almost non existence unless theres a local parade in a town where all of a sudden there are 500 police staff, stood around twidling there thumbs wondering why the hell are we here for.

My friends sister is police officer she has said the police do 80% paperwork to 20% out on the beat! They dislike seeing small offences in the street, because they know if they arrest/reprimand they got 2 hours back at the office filling out paper work for something trival!

Also this country has gone politicaly correct mad. For example, its an offence in some countys to fly a St georges flag incase it upsets the muslims/aslyum seekers/terroists etc

Im gonna cap this off now before i start going on one. But it is true, our country has/is going down the pan from schools, nhs,jails,jobs and whatever else you might like to think of.

ok sorry but you area diehard conservative, or just plain misinformed, i agree actually that the police force is pretty worse for ware, however i disagree that its worse than the days of the convservatives. i live in east london in fact i live in the worst insurance post code in the whole of the UK. and i have seen a marked decrease in the levels of anti social behavior on my door step. i used to have people having fights and trashing cars every other day under the conservatives, when i was a kid i could not walk the street outside with my then 18 year old sister... now thankfully the crime has been targetted here, and seems to have moved on... not saying its better around the country, but it is here...

as for the case of the norfolk farmer, damn right he should have been put in jail he shot both those guys while they were running away... he was in no imediate danger, and took aim at two guys backs... that is manslaughter, (possibly a case of provocation or diminished responsability through mental stress) but its still wrong.

i cant vouch for the rest of those cases as i have never seen or head them before, and i doubt they are all true...

but just to cap....

Quote:

But it is true, our country has/is going down the pan from schools, nhs,jails,jobs

are you mad, please to start off with, do not mention MRSA as a labour problem, when Maggie thatcher privatised the cleaning industry it destroyed the NHS cleaning.... she caused this superbug, and the cost to bring it back under government control is too high right now... but cleaners used to be employed to do a good job with the best materials. now they are employed at a much lower rate, do less work and use cheaper products to make fat cats richer.

schools are in the best shape they have ever been, the pupil to adult ratio in the class is now 1-14 in state schools and only 1-11 in private schools thanks to teaching assistants in classes. speaking from personal experience, when i left school i was achieving level 5's in english math and science, and i was (with 4 other pupils) singled out as gifted because of that, i know now, (because i have family who work in schools + from league tables) the level alot of kids leave with is 6.... merely 15 years on, the number of people attaining higher education is more than it was under major. and we have a system of sustainability in the education system through studentloans at university... the money i pay now will go to the school children of tomorrow, it maintains the high level of funding in schools.

anyway... as some may know, i am a Labour supporter, and actually campaigned with a friend (helped him try to attain a seat) for Hackney South.... no prizes for guessing why this post got me going...lol end of rant... nothing personal rock... went into party political mode for a second there...lol oops... supposedto save these rants up... heh...

my keyboard is not always putting a space when i tell it too i have edited the post as best i can but if i have missed one, well my apologies... its a stupid keyboard.

**DudeMan** · 06-22-2006, 03:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CingularDuality

Really? Is the spirit of the article correct?

If you're in your home, sleeping with the wife and kids, and you hear a noise from downstairs, you investigate and find what appears to be a burglar, that advances on you once he realizes you've seen him, what are your options? Can you defend yourself with your swords? Can you defend yourself with a large kitchen knife? A cricket bat? A kitchen knife? Can you beat him with your bare hands? Harsh words? Are you allowed to use those?

Sure, I'm getting silly, but, really, what's next?

no you are not allowed to use swords.... thats a first, you are not allowed to be overly aggressive, you can defend yourself and your family however if you bash the man and he tries to escape you do not continue to bash him until he stops moving. it is complete spin that argument, have there not been cases in the states where a criminal fell through a skylight onto a knife and sued the occupyer... but this by no means makes the USA a softspot for criminals.

the farmer, i have to say again shot this kid in the back while he was running away... that is unacceptable... whilst i can sympathise with a spate of robberies, i cannot condone shooting an unarmed boy in the back i cant remember if he was even 18 yet... in this country you have to be in imediate dangerorfear thereof, to act aggressivly. and shooting somone as they run away with no personal danger to yourself is murder or manslaughter.no two ways about that.

**Switchcraft** · 06-22-2006, 03:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DudeMan

as for the case of the norfolk farmer, damn right he should have been put in jail he shot both those guys while they were running away... he was in no imediate danger, and took aim at two guys backs... that is manslaughter, (possibly a case of provocation or diminished responsability through mental stress) but its still wrong.

I realize I don't live over there, and this was a very polarizing issue at the time, but I have read the case, and the burglars did not ever claim they were shot running away. The two burglars, previously convicted for violent crimes, and driven there by another violent criminal with a previous conviction for breaking into this very same house, broke in through a window, and he fired without warning. Then they both ran, went out the window they'd come in. Only one was shot in the back. Both were shot in the legs. A non-unanimous jury verdict found him guilty of murder, and he was sentenced to life in prison. That was overturned and reduced, but the fact remains that his parole was denied because he posed an "unacceptable risk" to future burglers, which I think was much more pertinent to the article's argument than whether he was convicted..

This case is interesting enough that I'm going to post another Sandbox thread about it so I don't hijack this one.

**Rock** · 06-22-2006, 02:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DudeMan

ok sorry but you area diehard conservative, or just plain misinformed, i agree actually that the police force is pretty worse for ware, however i disagree that its worse than the days of the convservatives. i live in east london in fact i live in the worst insurance post code in the whole of the UK. and i have seen a marked decrease in the levels of anti social behavior on my door step. i used to have people having fights and trashing cars every other day under the conservatives, when i was a kid i could not walk the street outside with my then 18 year old sister... now thankfully the crime has been targetted here, and seems to have moved on... not saying its better around the country, but it is here...

as for the case of the norfolk farmer, damn right he should have been put in jail he shot both those guys while they were running away... he was in no imediate danger, and took aim at two guys backs... that is manslaughter, (possibly a case of provocation or diminished responsability through mental stress) but its still wrong.

i cant vouch for the rest of those cases as i have never seen or head them before, and i doubt they are all true...

but just to cap....

are you mad, please to start off with, do not mention MRSA as a labour problem, when Maggie thatcher privatised the cleaning industry it destroyed the NHS cleaning.... she caused this superbug, and the cost to bring it back under government control is too high right now... but cleaners used to be employed to do a good job with the best materials. now they are employed at a much lower rate, do less work and use cheaper products to make fat cats richer.

schools are in the best shape they have ever been, the pupil to adult ratio in the class is now 1-14 in state schools and only 1-11 in private schools thanks to teaching assistants in classes. speaking from personal experience, when i left school i was achieving level 5's in english math and science, and i was (with 4 other pupils) singled out as gifted because of that, i know now, (because i have family who work in schools + from league tables) the level alot of kids leave with is 6.... merely 15 years on, the number of people attaining higher education is more than it was under major. and we have a system of sustainability in the education system through studentloans at university... the money i pay now will go to the school children of tomorrow, it maintains the high level of funding in schools.

anyway... as some may know, i am a Labour supporter, and actually campaigned with a friend (helped him try to attain a seat) for Hackney South.... no prizes for guessing why this post got me going...lol end of rant... nothing personal rock... went into party political mode for a second there...lol oops... supposedto save these rants up... heh...

my keyboard is not always putting a space when i tell it too i have edited the post as best i can but if i have missed one, well my apologies... its a stupid keyboard.

Your entitled to your opinion dude man, but im sticking to my guns.

I dont want to get slated for saying this and that, but in my honest opinion labour sucks!

Im not conservative die hard, far from it. I think they all have their downfalls, some worse than others!

BNP is seeming a good choice lately!

**DudeMan** · 06-23-2006, 01:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rock

BNP is seeming a good choice lately!

i seriously hope that is some kind of joke, if not dont reply,i dont really wantto discuss THAT issue...

06-20-2006, 02:04 PM	#1 (permalink)
Pickle Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Land of Fruit and Nuts! Age: 35 Posts: 1,281	For the Brits here I'd like to hear from you guys if this is a load of crap. I got this in an email stating it was pulled from the Wall Street Journal. Regardless of weather or not it actually appeared in the WSJ I want to hear what our neighbors across the pond have to say. Mad Dogs and Englishmen By JOYCE LEE MALCOLM June 17, 2006; Page A11 With Great Britain now the world's most violent developed country, the British government has hit upon a way to reduce the number of cases before the courts: Police have been instructed to let off with a caution burglars and those who admit responsibility for some 60 other crimes ranging from assault and arson to sex with an underage girl. That is, no jail time, no fine, no community service, no court appearance. It's cheap, quick, saves time and money, and best of all the offenders won't tax an already overcrowded jail system. Not everyone will be treated so leniently. A new surveillance system promises to hunt down anyone exceeding the speed limit. Using excessive force against a burglar or mugger will earn you a conviction for assault or, if you seriously harm him, a long sentence. Tony Martin, the Norfolk farmer jailed for killing one burglar and wounding another during the seventh break-in at his rural home, was denied parole because he posed a threat to burglars. The career burglar whom Mr. Martin wounded got out early. Using a cap pistol, as an elderly woman did to scare off a gang of youths, will bring you to court for putting someone in fear. Recently, police tried to stop David Collinson from entering his burning home to rescue his asthmatic wife. He refused to obey and, brandishing a toy pistol, dashed into the blaze. Minutes later he returned with his wife and dog and apologized to the police. Not good enough. In April Mr. Collinson was sentenced to a year in prison for being aggressive towards the officers and brandishing the toy pistol. Still, at least he won't be sharing his cell with an arsonist or thief. How did things come to a pass where law-abiding citizens are treated as criminals and criminals as victims? A giant step was the 1953 Prevention of Crime Act, making it illegal to carry any article for an offensive purpose; any item carried for self-defense was automatically an offensive weapon and the carrier is guilty until proven innocent. At the time a parliamentarian protested that "The object of a weapon was to assist weakness to cope with strength and it is this ability that the bill was framed to destroy." The government countered that the public should be discouraged "from going about with offensive weapons in their pockets; it is the duty of society to protect them." The trouble is that society cannot and does not protect them. Yet successive governments have insisted protection be left to the professionals, meanwhile banning all sorts of weapons, from firearms to chemical sprays. They hope to add toy or replica guns to the list along with kitchen knives with points. Other legislation has limited self-defense to what seems reasonable to a court much later. Although British governments insist upon sole responsibility for protecting individuals, for ideological and economic reasons they have adopted a lenient approach toward offenders. Because prisons are expensive and don't reform their residents, fewer offenders are incarcerated. Those who are get sharply reduced sentences, and serve just half of these. Still, with crime rates rising, prisons are overcrowded and additional jail space will not be available anytime soon. The public learned in April that among convicts released early to ease overcrowding were violent or sex offenders serving mandatory life sentences who were freed after as little as 15 months. The government's duty to protect the public has been compromised by other economies. Police forces are smaller than those of America and Europe and have been consolidated, leaving 70% of English villages without a police presence. Police are so hard-pressed that the Humberside force announced in March they no longer investigate less serious crimes unless they are racist or homophobic. Among crimes not being investigated: theft, criminal damage, common assault, harassment and non-domestic burglary. As for more serious crime, the unarmed police are wary of responding to an emergency where the offender is armed. The Thames Valley Police waited nearly seven hours to enter Julia Pemberton's home after she telephoned from the closet where she was hiding from her estranged and armed husband. They arrived once the danger to them had passed, but after those who had pleaded for their help were past all help. To be fair, under the Blair government a host of actions have been initiated to bring about more convictions. At the end of its 2003 session Parliament repealed the 800-year-old guarantee against double jeopardy. Now anyone acquitted of a serious crime can be retried if "new and compelling evidence" is brought forward. Parliament tinkered with the definition of "new" to make that burden easier to meet. The test for "new" in these criminal cases, Lord Neill pointed out, will be lower than "is used habitually in civil cases. In a civil case, one would have to show that the new evidence was not reasonably available on the previous occasion. There is no such requirement here." Parliament was so excited by the benefits of chucking the ancient prohibition that it extended the repeal of double jeopardy from murder to cases of rape, manslaughter, kidnapping, drug-trafficking and some 20 other serious crimes. For good measure it made the new act retroactive. Henceforth, no one who has been, or will be, tried and acquitted of a serious crime can feel confident he will not be tried again, and again. To make the prosecutor's task still easier, he is now permitted to use hearsay evidence -- goodbye to confronting witnesses -- to introduce a defendant's prior record, and the number of jury trials is to be reduced. Still, the government has helped the homeowner by sponsoring a law "to prevent homeowners being sued by intruders who injure themselves while breaking in." It may be crass to point out that the British people, stripped of their ability to protect themselves and of other ancient rights and left to the mercy of criminals, have gotten the worst of both worlds. Still, as one citizen, referring to the new policy of letting criminals off with a caution, suggested: "Perhaps it would be easier and safer for the honest citizens of the U.K. to move into the prisons and the criminals to be let out." Ms. Malcolm is professor of history at Bentley College and author of, inter alia, "Guns and Violence: The English Experience" (Harvard University Press, 2002). __________________ "Umm Deputy these aren't my pants" - Common alarm cry of the North American Crackhead [tg-c1][ma-c1][defense]

06-20-2006, 02:21 PM	#2 (permalink)
Rick_the_new_guy Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: Virginia Beach Age: 29 Posts: 1,789	Re: For the Brits here dunno for sure, but it has got to be a load of dung. It must be!! please someone confirm this!! __________________ (PO3) Marcinko_R. (BF2 PR .509) Squad Member (CPO) Marcinko_R. (BF2 PR .509) Squad Leader (LCDR) Marcinko_R. (BF2 PR .509) Commander Squad Member pledge to their SL:http://www.tacticalgamer.com/battlef...ad-leader.html Squad Leader pledge to their team:http://www.tacticalgamer.com/battlef...r-platoon.html Commander pledge to their SL:http://www.tacticalgamer.com/battlef...d-leaders.html

06-20-2006, 02:41 PM	#3 (permalink)
Rock Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Plymouth England Age: 29 Posts: 840	Re: For the Brits here Unfortuantley its all true. I dont want to babble on but, Ever since labour came to power in 1997 this country has fallen sharply. Ok our economy may be good, and fair dos, labour saved us form the then conservatives, which were failing in many sectors. IE economy, strikes blah blah blah Now our police are almost non existence unless theres a local parade in a town where all of a sudden there are 500 police staff, stood around twidling there thumbs wondering why the hell are we here for. My friends sister is police officer she has said the police do 80% paperwork to 20% out on the beat! They dislike seeing small offences in the street, because they know if they arrest/reprimand they got 2 hours back at the office filling out paper work for something trival! Also this country has gone politicaly correct mad. For example, its an offence in some countys to fly a St georges flag incase it upsets the muslims/aslyum seekers/terroists etc Im gonna cap this off now before i start going on one. But it is true, our country has/is going down the pan from schools, nhs,jails,jobs and whatever else you might like to think of. __________________ TG-E1st TacticalGamer European Division \| Team up with us today!

06-20-2006, 08:13 PM	#6 (permalink)
Obi Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: Scotland Age: 20 Posts: 2,081	Re: For the Brits here Who can you blame for this mess? These decisions are being made by faceless suits who rarely would take sole responsibility for these desicions. It makes me so angry. Who are we supposed to confront about the way the country is going? We can't blame Tony Blair personally about burglars being able to sue thier victims. Who is the guy that I should moan at about my Gran going to court for using a cap gun? The problem is a general attitude that is spreading. There are so many different things that are turning this country into a place where everyone sues each other and passes the blame. Every second advertisment on TV is telling you how to get money from your employers if you hurt yourself. I'll give you some examples of the scenarios that are being used to advertise these "no win no fee" companies. Each advertisment has a reinactment of a situation where some idiot is awarded thousands of pounds for hurting themsleves because "it wasn't thier fault". In on case a wome picks up a crate of bottles from a shelve above her head. The crate is wet and she ends up twisting her arm. She is awarded lots of money. On another advert some builder person attempts to pick up some heavy equipment. He hurts is back and is recieves compensation because he hadn't been given saftey training. Another guy is fixing a fire alarm system. The alarm system is high up on the outside wall so he must use a ladder. He falls because he was "given the wrong ladder". He recieves compensation. It's this "money for nothing" attitude that everyone is adopting that is causing our society to go down the pan. Everyone wants money for themselves. A good way to get money for yourself is to sue someone. People don't want to be sued so they introduce these insane measures to cover thier back from being sued. My mum is a teacher at a Primary school ( kids under 11). She is responsible for making sure her class doesn't get sun burn. If a kid gets sun burn my mum has to take the responsibility. What the hell is up with that? I have found that I as I go through life there a certain times when I realise and understand a great truth. One of thes great truths is, in general, people...are...stupid. Whoa, I ranted a little bit there. I think I should be Prime Minister. -0b1 __________________

06-21-2006, 01:42 PM	#8 (permalink)
Wulfyn Join Date: May 2005 Location: Norwich, UK Age: 29 Posts: 4,236	Re: For the Brits here Well to clarify the article does bring up some very important and salient points, and I hope I have referred to them as such. For example the farmer that was convicted for defending his home was outrageous. However there is also a lot of crap that has been put in there to butter the rest of it up. Unfortuantely when journalism seeks to falsify or exaggerate aspects of stories in order to put an angle on it that the journalist wants and not that the public wants (assuming the public always wants the truth) then you have to start to question the motivation of the journalist. Is he trying to report on a story, or maybe he hates the UK and is trying to slag it off. When the motivation of the journalist comes into serious question then I think you have to be very cautious about reading too much into the article. For an answer to your question Cing, you are much better off referencing the original story instead of using the rest of this story to find a marker in how things are. __________________ Last edited by Wulfyn; 06-21-2006 at 02:00 PM.

06-22-2006, 12:11 AM	#9 (permalink)
Rick_the_new_guy Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: Virginia Beach Age: 29 Posts: 1,789	Re: For the Brits here intriguing, this age of suing each other and not taking responsibility for your own actions, or kids, is established else were in the world. If this stuff continues there is a possibilty for a sudden aliner political shift for real tough laws that leads to fascism. I have watched the movie V for Vendetta. The movie took place like 18 years from now with a fascist nation in England and a Cival War in the U.S.A. This slow proccess of giving villians breaks and the victums more heart aches will continue until other political global issues rise and again a sudden political shift will possilby happen. This may be orchestrated by master minds seeking power. I.e. a Sith Lord of sorts. The future is one of my biggest motivators to keep up my health. I want to see this chicken Excrement experiment ended all ready. __________________ (PO3) Marcinko_R. (BF2 PR .509) Squad Member (CPO) Marcinko_R. (BF2 PR .509) Squad Leader (LCDR) Marcinko_R. (BF2 PR .509) Commander Squad Member pledge to their SL:http://www.tacticalgamer.com/battlef...ad-leader.html Squad Leader pledge to their team:http://www.tacticalgamer.com/battlef...r-platoon.html Commander pledge to their SL:http://www.tacticalgamer.com/battlef...d-leaders.html

Sponsored links

Sponsored links

Sponsored links