Burglers in Narborough

[consty]

I think your post reinforces my point. :icon_wink After all if we take America one could call their foreign policy very thuggish and there have been bombings in Thailand and Indonesia. Out of the examples you have used I can only think of Malaysia and Singapore as exceptions to my rule. :icon_bigg :icon_wink

We may well have similar views on the US, indeed if you are left-leaning then on many things - it's just that on law and order and cracking crime I have very different views from most of my peers. I'd call the US a neo-colonial empire and their anti-progressive/anti-self-determination policies throughout the world do cause the frustration that encourages resorting to terrorism. However their policies I would not describe as 'thuggish' or terroristic, their policies are just due to a narrow and misguided US view on their own ecomonic self-interest and how to protect them. I wouldn't call them a 'thuggish' state as such.

Thailand experiences very little terror - less than the 'liberal' Uk for example, so I'd add them to your citations of Malaysia and Singapore of having little terror but severely treated criminals. I think the real 'rule' that has a correlation to home-grown terrorsm is not if a state is tough on crime but if it's people are i)denied self-determination ii) are culturally more backward and ill-liberal in their attitudes to liberty, freedom of choice and the value of human life. It is perfectly compatable for a western democracy to retain these values but treat it's criminals with both the harshness and severity they deserve and that will deter such future behaviour - the latter though will only happen if punitive policies are reinforced by a massive extension of policing, intelligence and informants.

 

[consty]

I think your post reinforces my point. :icon_wink After all if we take America one could call their foreign policy very thuggish and there have been bombings in Thailand and Indonesia. Out of the examples you have used I can only think of Malaysia and Singapore as exceptions to my rule. :icon_bigg :icon_wink

We may well have similar views on the US, indeed if you are left-leaning then on many things - it's just that on law and order and cracking crime I have very different views from most of my peers. I'd call the US a neo-colonial empire and their anti-progressive/anti-self-determination policies throughout the world do cause the frustration that encourages resorting to terrorism. However this is due to a narrow and misguided US view on their own ecomonic self-interest and how to protect it; I wouldn't call them a 'thuggish' state as such. Thailand experiences very little terror - less than the 'liberal' Uk for example, so I'd add them to your citations of Malaysia and Singapore. I think the real 'rule' that has a correlation to home-grown terrorsm not if a state is tough on crime but if it's people are i)denied self-determination ii) are culturally more backward and ill-liberal in their attitudes to liberty, freedom of choice and the value of human life. It is perfectly compatable for a western democracy to retain these values but treat it's criminals with the harshness and severity they deserve and the harshness and severity that they both deserve and will deter such future behaviour - the latter though will only happen if it is also reinforced by a massive extension of policing, intelligence and informants.

 

[fcukcov]

echo, echo.....

 

[Steven]

We may well have similar views on the US, indeed if you are left-leaning then on many things - it's just that on law and order and cracking crime I have very different views from most of my peers. I'd call the US a neo-colonial empire and their anti-progressive/anti-self-determination policies throughout the world do cause the frustration that encourages resorting to terrorism. However their policies I would not describe as 'thuggish' or terroristic, it is just due to a narrow and misguided US view on their own ecomonic self-interest and how to protect it. I wouldn't call them a 'thuggish' state as such. Thailand experiences very little terror - less than the 'liberal' Uk for example, so I'd add them to your citations of Malaysia and Singapore of having little terror but severely treated felons. I think the real 'rule' that has a correlation to home-grown terrorsm is not if a state is tough on crime but if it's people are i)denied self-determination ii) are culturally more backward and ill-liberal in their attitudes to liberty, freedom of choice and the value of human life. It is perfectly compatable for a western democracy to retain these values but treat it's criminals with the harshness and severity they deserve and the harshness and severity that they both deserve and will deter such future behaviour - the latter though will only happen if it is also reinforced by a massive extension of policing, intelligence and informants.

Bold - There is a lot of low level violence in Southern Thailand that causes death and destruction. Including all motorcycles having to park with their seats up for example. So I would remove them from that list including Malaysia and Singapore. I would also add the Philippines to the Indonesia, Thailand etc list.

Italic - This to me describes aspects of modern Britain and the direction it has taken under the Eric Honecker school of politician, Blair and Brown. So perhaps the fact that there are home grown terrorists is no surprise. On the other hand this Government needs terror to use it as a means to gain power.

Underlined - There is no evidence to suggest that punishments of the sort you suggest do anything to prevent crime or help the victims and future victims of crime. Moreover attempts to do the sort of things you suggest end up in ordinary people being subject to the Law needlessly.

 

[Macky]

nonsense, nonsense......

 

[Macky]

There is no evidence to suggest that punishments of the sort you suggest do anything to prevent crime or help the victims and future victims of crime. Moreover attempts to do the sort of things you suggest end up in ordinary people being subject to the Law needlessly.

Agreed

 

[consty]

...So perhaps the fact that there are home grown terrorists is no surprise. On the other hand this Government needs terror to use it as a means to gain power.

Underlined - There is no evidence to suggest that punishments of the sort you suggest do anything to prevent crime or help the victims and future victims of crime. Moreover attempts to do the sort of things you suggest end up in ordinary people being subject to the Law needlessly.

The State will always react to attack with rigour whether it be from homegrown terrorists - islamic or irish for example - or from striking miners. None of these examples of British State reaction that I approve of (lest I be misunderstood here). The State defends itself and feeds on paranoia, agreed... But this debate is about crime, not about terrorism particularly.

You support a liberal approach to crime and policing - which I once did, but have long since abandoned. I am convinced crime and social problems can be rolled back by radical, sweeping & socialistic policies - but am also convinced that they need to be preceeded first by a massive and draconain clean up by law-enforcement agencies in our communities. A few innocents might suffer, but thousands of pensioners would be saved the angusih of being burgled or mugged, as would thousands of other citizens generally and that is truely worth it.

 

[Macky]

...they need to be preceeded first by a massive and draconain clean up by law-enforcement agencies in our communities. A few innocents might suffer, but thousands of pensioners would be saved the angusih of being burgled or mugged, as would thousands of other citizens generally and that is truely worth it.

Utter nonsense.
If a scaghead is strung out with his bones jangling he or she won't give a flying **** about your draconian policies, they'll just be looking for the quickest, easiest way of making some cash.

 

[Singth]

The best way is to buy a nasty ****ing dog that'll tear their arms off

 

[consty]

Utter nonsense.
If a scaghead is strung out with his bones jangling he or she won't give a flying **** about your draconian policies, they'll just be looking for the quickest, easiest way of making some cash.

Macky,
It's not nonsense. You've misunderstood how far reaching the ideas I'm advocating would be. If the scragheads are all in jail or strung up (rather than "strung out"), then they can do nothing to harm their communities. Whether they will give a flying fcuk or not I do not care, they will be in jail. They can ponder about their behaviour and the consequences for it there. When released, which would not be in a hurry, they will be subjected to weekly random drug tests, a positive test resulting in immediate long term custody. If the streets are flooded with law enforcement officers, community officers and auxiliaries and there is a massive extension of the informants system into all of our roughest streets, pubs, clubs, snooker halls, betting offices, and all the rest - offenders will be rounded up and caught in their thousands. One could say the jails are full to overflowing at 85,000 currently but to bring about a 20 years collapse in the crime rate we will need a five fold extension to 500,000 places. They can be built, and cheaply - there are radical and successful experiments on these lines in some states in the US with new prison camps costing next to nothing. I should know, my research has helped advise their setting up.

Any burgalry is not petty crime. It should result in an automatic custodial sentence. 20 years of this with a new generation being reared under it will understand the score. Public drunkeness and the mass lawless outbreaks of public violence that result will also be stamped out. Some people here know that I know these people, that I have lived with them, and even lived some of their lifestyle to an extent, and that I have studied them and even rescued a few of them. But no social policies will stop those who have fallen so far as the junkies Macky refers to and no social policies will stop the hard-core criminal underclass that chooses to live by crime alone. They will stop when we stop them. We will stop them by putting them in jail and in camps and keeping them there. It is the next generation that will grow up, compared to these times, relatively crime free. It is that generation that will deserve and respond to liberal and socialist policies. But today, build a youth centre in a deprived area and it will be vandalised on the first day, burgled on its second, and burned down on its third. Round these offenders up, throw away the key - and you can invest in our communities with good results. Meanwhile the rest of you will be able to go out of an evening and go away on holiday and not be worried that you will find you have been cleaned out because the theives will be in jail.

 

[Melton Fox]

theives will be in jail.

The prisons are full of Ives, we need to get them back on the streets on rehab programmes.

 

[Steven]

The State will always react to attack with rigour whether it be from homegrown terrorists - islamic or irish for example - or from striking miners. None of these examples of British State reaction that I approve of (lest I be misunderstood here). The State defends itself and feeds on paranoia, agreed... But this debate is about crime, not about terrorism particularly.

You support a liberal approach to crime and policing - which I once did, but have long since abandoned. I am convinced crime and social problems can be rolled back by radical, sweeping & socialistic policies - but am also convinced that they need to be preceeded first by a massive and draconain clean up by law-enforcement agencies in our communities. A few innocents might suffer, but thousands of pensioners would be saved the angusih of being burgled or mugged, as would thousands of other citizens generally and that is truely worth it.

The fear of crime is something the Government does little or nothing to reduce as they need to use that fear to get themselves elected.

It would appear to me that your "solution" is worse than the crimes it is trying to solve.

 

[Macky]

Macky,
It's not nonsense. Seig Heil!

 

[consty]

Macky,
Thanks for the caricature. There is no national socialism towards any race, any class, any political views left or right. There is a radical policy towards the criminal underclasses, to property offences and to violent offenders - and to these people alone. There would be liberalism for eveyone else; to socialism even if they would only care to vote for it.

 

[homer]

Macky,
Thanks for the caricature. There is no national socialism towards any race, any class, any political views left or right. There is a radical policy towards the criminal underclasses, to property offences and to violent offenders - and to these people alone. There would be liberalism for eveyone else; to socialism even if they would only care to vote for it.

If anything, consty, you're being far too liberal yourself

If we simply killed all of the criminals, then we would guarantee that the rest of us (and our precious property) would be safe for ever more

Why take the risk of simply punishing them, or locking them away for an all-too-brief period of time ? That's the talk of crazy cardigan-wearing nutcase softly-softly do gooders

Just gas the feckers, and have done with it. Job done

 

[Macky]

Macky,
Thanks for the caricature. There is no national socialism towards any race, any class, any political views left or right. There is a radical policy towards the criminal underclasses, to property offences and to violent offenders - and to these people alone. There would be liberalism for eveyone else; to socialism even if they would only care to vote for it.

In other words, you'd spend pointless billions brutalising people without dealing with the root cause of the problem.
Good plan.

 

[Chuck T Masala]

In other words, you'd spend pointless billions brutalising people without dealing with the root cause of the problem.
Good plan.

But we never deal with the root cause of the problems...ever.

 

[consty]

The fear of crime is something the Government does little or nothing to reduce as they need to use that fear to get themselves elected.

It would appear to me that your "solution" is worse than the crimes it is trying to solve.

Correct, they do little. But there is no thorough or systematic exploiting of the fear of crime to get elected - they all know that they are all as bad and ineffective as each other on this issue which is the reason it is not a party political issue. They indulge in a bit of fake point-scoring from time to time, but that's all and that's politicians for you.

You may think my 'solution' is worse but any big problem normally has some rather unpalatable things that need doing if it is going to be meaningfully tackled. The alternatives of 'more of the same' that you must be advocating will mean this situation will last forever. One in three households are burgled, thousands are in enslavement to drugs and thousands receive violent treatment on the streets (taking pub and club traffic into account) as well as others etc etc. My way would fix it, the status quo won't is my main point.

 

[Melton Fox]

If I could pass the medical I would joing the Police force and sort it out.

Never pass it though.

 

[OldGit]

If I could pass the medical I would joing the Police force and sort it out.

Never pass it though.

You might

He did