The Express are suffering memory loss again
"Just let us out! EU will demand ANOTHER delay - even if UK decides on no-deal Brexit
"Just let us out! EU will demand ANOTHER delay - even if UK decides on no-deal Brexit
Brexit, for once some facts.
- Thread starter flecc
- Start date
Did you miss the bit where I said "or on Holiday" When I was In Majorca the scots were buying loads of spirits (no limit for personal use) when I said it's as cheap in Morrisons (£16 a litre this week) they said "not in Scotland it's not"
Hannan has been at it again in the Times
This half wit belongs to a Fascist so called "Think tank" calling itself The Initiative for Free Trade (IFT) among it's dangerously lunatic ideas
Ministers should allow American healthcare companies to compete with the NHS to run hospitals as part of a free-trade pact after Brexit
And it said that Britain should also end its ban on imports of products such as chlorinated chicken and accept American environmental and food safety regulations as equivalent to those in the UK.
Bought and sold with American Gold, what a parcel of rogues, not a think tank
With apologies to a kindred Scot.
Subversive enemies of the Welfare state is what they actually are, they would reduce the country to being a second rate, socially backward country like America
This half wit belongs to a Fascist so called "Think tank" calling itself The Initiative for Free Trade (IFT) among it's dangerously lunatic ideas
Ministers should allow American healthcare companies to compete with the NHS to run hospitals as part of a free-trade pact after Brexit
And it said that Britain should also end its ban on imports of products such as chlorinated chicken and accept American environmental and food safety regulations as equivalent to those in the UK.
Bought and sold with American Gold, what a parcel of rogues, not a think tank
With apologies to a kindred Scot.
Subversive enemies of the Welfare state is what they actually are, they would reduce the country to being a second rate, socially backward country like America
The traditional mainstream parties only have themselves to blame. Ordinary people no longer feel represented, so they will go to the nearest thing which gives the illusion of representing their concerns.The Daily Mail have this
The answer to crime is to begin by realising that there is no solution, since crime is as old as humanity itself and will always exist.
Then to act to minimise it.
The first action is not to increase it by foolish decisions. For example, recorded crimes grew sharply from the early 1960s when they were some 1 million per annum to 3.5 millions by the 1980s, and closing to well over 6 millions at the peak in 1991.
It was the ordinary decent public, aided by the media, who largely created that huge increase, with their instinctive but wholly misguided calls for tougher sentencing. Starting from the early 1960s, that tougher sentencing with very long prison terms was enacted and the prison population multiplied EIGHT times from then to today. But as shown above, the crime levels also rose, by over SIX times. So much for those who say locking criminals away for long periods reduces crime. It clearly does nothing of the sort, doing the opposite and making things far worse.
The second action is to minimise the remaining levels of crime, and as history clearly shows, that can be done in two main ways. One is easily understood and accepted, though takes time, the other seems so objectionable at first sight that it's difficult to swallow, but it works and there is an example.
I've worked and learnt in this field and believe me, criminology is a very big subject. Accordingly to explain the background to the above with proofs will take some time. Since my posts on this so far have often been met with the very same foolish responses I mentioned above, it makes me disinclined to bother if all I am to get in response is the same refusal to think, stubbornly following failed misguided instincts that led us to where we are.
So convince me, is it worth me bothering?
.
Last edited:
modern living comes with more exposure to crimes.
If you want to avoid being a victim, live like a hermit, barricade yourself inside your home, don't own anything worth stealing, don't carry cash or an expensive mobile phone, don't wear expensive clothing, don't stay in posh hotels and drive a Ford car.
Yes, as I said, there will always be crime, but the connection you make is tenuous.
Crime was often much lower at times when there were more stealables, easily accessible and which had good value, but very much higher when the remaining stealables were worth much less and much more difficult to dispose of.
.
Last edited:
It is the probability of getting caught,and the social outcasting which is the greatest deterrent. So greater physical mobility, not knowing or caring about the neighbours, and inadequate detection techniques all increase theft type crime.
In the mid 1990s ,I had an Opel Rekord... Inthe UK you call them Vauxhall. A large family saloon model in Shiny Racing Green and loads of chrome. That car was broken into at least 4 times, with the side window smashed on each occasion. I became reasonably adapt at going to scrap yards and finding glass and in the arcane art of actually getting the window to wind up fully. It made no difference whether it was in a posh neighborhood,at home,or at a beach car park.
All my later cars have been a Grey ..including an Audi A6 ,and never the same problem
I’m afraid this is being unnecessarily over complicated again, leading to confusion and ultimately the wrong conclusion.
Winding this back to basics, if a persistent criminal is in a prison, they can’t commit crimes against people who aren’t in prison, ie you and me.
Then comes the cost of keeping people in a prison. Why should that be expensive? A cell can be 2m x 2m occupying a footprint of 4 square metres. Stack the cells on top of each other and the land requirement/ prisoner can be reduced to under 1 square metre / prisoner. Food could easily come in at under £2 / day. If inmates remain confined to a cell 24 hours / day, prison staff could be very much reduced.
Once the prisoner feels they are ready to leave 24 hour confinement, they could apply to be considered eligible to work. Once working they could be productive. If they aren’t productive or become disruptive, they could go back to 24 hour confinement.
It’s the “freedom” given to our prison population which makes the system expensive to run. Drugs, phones, visitors smuggling in drugs and weapons etc. Remove those freedoms and reduce the costs.
Back to basics, if you have persistent criminals, your management of criminality has already failed.
We have had a spate of burglaries near me (old folks bungalows) they have got somebody for it who already who has over 50 convictions. Nobody should be walking the streets with 50 convictions for burglary. Oh and another thing the bloke handed himself in to the police because one of the old age victim's had 4 sons who the burglar was a lot more scared of than the police.
good post Flecc. Obviously it is never going to be possible to eradicate crime altogether and as you say it has always been a fact of life. It may be that general crime is no more prevalent today than it always has been, but is highlighted more because of computerised reporting methods. At one time many of today's crimes would not have even been recorded, but may have been dealt with by the local police in an informal way. The causes of crime are many and varied, ranging from desperation to simply wanting something you can't afford. However I think one of the major causes of crime today is drug use, and the constant need to access money to pay for it. I don't think that just sending people to prison for longer sentences is going to solve the problem. By doing that you just create a lot of people with no hope and no prospects, so the only way to survive is to resort back to crime. Personally I think that sentencing should be targeted with strong punishments for violence against people as a priority. It is ridiculous that we send people to jail for not paying a TV licence of Poll Tax, but there doesn't seem to be any alternative at the moment
The same disapointing unthinking response from someone who simply understands nothing about the subject that I thought I'd get. As I've shown irrefutably, keeping prisoners in longer doesn't reduce crime, it greatly increases it. There are several mechanisms involved. Firstly prisons are a school for crime, criminal knowledge shared and even plans made, so when released they are more effective criminals. Secondly, long prison sentences promote multi-generational criminality in families for obvious reasons. Thirdly, sentences that create resentment throw away the best asset in the fight against crime, but this is a complex area I can't cover here, and in any case I suspect I might be wasting my time where you are concerned.
All been tried in the USA and totally failed, resulting in the world's largest prison population relative to size. Once again the same lesson, that the harsher the punishment, the worse the crime problem. Intuitively that seems wrong, which is why you and others insist the opposite. But all the facts and evidence show that you are wrong but refuse to acknowledge the truth and thus make matters worse.
.
Deterrence doesn't work. When the probability of being caught was much higher, crime levels were much lower. When sentences were much shorter, crime levels were much lower.
.
Unconsciously, yes. Like he did, metaphorically, when he supported brexit thinking it would lose the vote but make him a populist stairway to tory leadership. Or when he almost condemned that iranian woman to a life in prison.
I can't comment on an individual case where I have no details, and by the same token, the circumstances of one case aren't the answer to a national crime problem.
.