What a mess!

[JohnfromUK]

35 minutes ago, Vince Green said:

A start would be to identify and actually deport the ones who shouldn't be here in the first place.

Whilst I note and agree with the post saying many of the perpetrators may well not have grown up here, probably many did and are UK passport holders - and so cannot be deported.  Deporting is difficult ..... and quite likely they would come straight back.

 

44 minutes ago, Penelope said:

Legalizing cannabis would help

I don't agree with legalising cannabis, but even if it was legalised - the dealers would move on to another substance.  We see more and more violence in  the local rags about both 'spice' and other 'hard' drugs - often in connection with 'county lines gangs'.

My own view is zero tolerance - and hard (and by that I mean Victorian style) prisons - but then the liberal left and human rights defenders would never tolerate that.  If you end up in prison, many of your so called 'human rights' that you would have as a 'free man' should be put on hold.  To those who say that this would lead them into a 'life of crime', I think many end up that way anyway.  I saw something in the local paper recently where the criminal (in for armed robbery and who had a drugs 'problem') had over 100 convictions already.  Such people should be locked up where they can't commit crimes like that.

[oowee]

1 hour ago, DanBettin said:

I feel like a lot of people are looking in the wrong places for the cause of the increase in knife-related crime. I've seen the finger pointed at schools, drug laws, lack of police - none of which is the cause. It's simply a culture thing. Inside the life of these gangs, people don't hold the same perception on violent crime - not at all, not in the slightest. It is glorified to the point that it's part of their duty in order to play the game they have to play. Your politicians and TV figures debating this don't have to play the same game, never have, so they project reason and rationale that simply doesn't apply.

Start with this. Imagine a world where your role model is violence and gang culture. Where the only respect you have is from others with the same values. In this alternative world you can create a life for yourself in a world that does not understand and appreciate the hopelessness of your situation. 

This is the reality that many of these youngsters face. Often born into families where there is a history of twilight underworld of crime going back for generations, or where they are marginalised through an institutional prejudice that will not allow them to break through into the world within which we live. 

To deal with these issues requires a holistic and co ordinated multi agency approach, that has long term funding to address ingrained cultural issues. Alternatively, continue with short term sticking plasters, blame youth, parents, immigrants, minorities or whatever and continue to see these problems into the future. As the rich get richer the poor get poorer. 

[lister22]

We do not have a police"force"  we have a police service

when I want to post a letter I use a service how can you fight crime with a "service"

[JohnfromUK]

1 minute ago, oowee said:

To deal with these issues requires a holistic and co ordinated multi agency approach, that has long term funding to address ingrained cultural issues.

Please explain;  I understand "ingrained cultural issues" - which means habitual bad offender.  I understand "long term funding" - which means a lot of money.

What is a "holistic and co-ordinated multi agency approach"?  My apologies, but sounds to me like a politicians 'gobbledygook' used to justify the 'long term funding'.  On what do you actually spend this 'long term funding' in the event that it became available?

We (Gloucestershire) had 20 years ago an experiment where public money was spent on sending some persistent youth offenders on expensive 'character building' courses.  It was a flagship scheme at the time and was very expensive.  These have spectacularly failed and the individuals concerned have continued with a life of crime and repeatedly visit the courts and prisons - and are now also apparently drug addicts (which they weren't when they entered the scheme as that was one of the criteria for entry I think) - I don't believe they have ever had a real job despite great efforts by the probation service.  The trial was quietly dropped and nowadays even the probation service has pretty much admitted they are simply 'habitual criminals'.

[oowee]

11 minutes ago, JohnfromUK said:

Please explain;  I understand "ingrained cultural issues" - which means habitual bad offender.  I understand "long term funding" - which means a lot of money.

What is a "holistic and co-ordinated multi agency approach"?  My apologies, but sounds to me like a politicians 'gobbledygook' used to justify the 'long term funding'. 

These have spectacularly failed and the individuals concerned have continued with a life of crime and repeatedly visit the courts and prisons - and are now also apparently drug addicts (which they weren't when they entered the scheme as that was one of the criteria for entry I think) - I don't believe they have ever had a real job despite great efforts by the probation service.  The trial was quietly dropped and nowadays even the probation service has pretty much admitted they are simply 'habitual criminals'.

You start by saying the problem has built up over a long term so will not be addressed by a short term fix and will require concerted effort and resources. The problem is one of education, opportunity, role models, health, discrimination, housing, drugs, social care, poverty, employment, policing.... the list goes on. You bring all of the agencies responsible for these elements together and you directly manage their activities in regard to how they relate to the target audience. You have resources available to supplement the agencies day jobs to enhance the way that they tackle and engage with this exclusion agenda. 

They may never have had a 'real' job and that may be true of their parents and friends and the world within which they operate. Is a habitual criminal born or made?  If you believe they are born that way then you would look for a medical cure, if you believe they are made then you look to tackle the causes. 

Edited November 7, 2018 by oowee

[Walker570]

How many of you support the death penalty for murder  ?    How many support having a 25yr prison sentence minimum for anyone using any object capable of causing death or injury whilst acting in a criminal manner ?     There is no retribution. Prisoners now have a better standard of living inside than they did at home.    I have a friend...reads The Independant by the way ... who is against captital punishment, so I suggested that purpose built prisons should be built where a convicted murderer should be locked up with absolutely no outside influence. Bare walls and a basic menu for healthy survival. I said if they subsequently got proved to be innocent they could be released with a couple of million compensation.  He was worried they might go 'stare crazy'.   I said well for those who had done it then it would be the next best thing to being dead.

Retribution needs to be brought back.

[JohnfromUK]

OK, I understand a little better what you are saying now, but I'm still very confused.

27 minutes ago, oowee said:

The problem is one of education, opportunity, role models, health, discrimination, housing, drugs, social care, poverty, employment, policing.... the list goes on

The list is indeed long.  There come a point with many things where the cost and practicality of fixing isn't viable.  Like a cheap boxlock gun, pitted, dented barrels, ribs loose, loose action, cracked stock.  They can all (probably) be fixed, but it isn't a right or sensible course of action to take.  No certain outcome, huge effort and cost that would be better spent elsewhere.

 

27 minutes ago, oowee said:

You bring all of the agencies responsible for these elements together

I doubt this is practical - getting two 'agencies' top operate together is hard, but many is very hard indeed - especially if the 'subject' isn't co-operative.

 

27 minutes ago, oowee said:

you directly manage their activities in regard to how they relate to the target audience.

Who manages their activities?  Is there some central co-ordination agency?  The probation service?  I assume the 'target audience' is the 'offender'?

 

27 minutes ago, oowee said:

You have resources available to supplement the agencies day jobs to enhance the way that they tackle and engage with this exclusion agenda. 

You have lost me completely here!  Does this mean 24 hour 'one to one' type supervision?  What is the 'exclusion agenda'?  If you mean excluded form society by being in prison, why not say so!

27 minutes ago, oowee said:

Is a habitual criminal born or made?

I can't answer that - but I expect some of one and some of the other.  What I do think is that some are beyond reform, will never become good law abiding and contributing citizens however much time, money and effort you expend on 'holistic and co-ordinated multi agency approaches' or indeed /medical 'cures' of some type.

Sorry, but I think there are some who should be on the scrap heap, like the boxlock gun (can also apply to best sidelocks as well!).

Edited November 7, 2018 by JohnfromUK

[Vince Green]

9 minutes ago, Walker570 said:

How many of you support the death penalty for murder  ?    How many support having a 25yr prison sentence minimum for anyone using any object capable of causing death or injury whilst acting in a criminal manner ?     There is no retribution. Prisoners now have a better standard of living inside than they did at home.    I have a friend...reads The Independant by the way ... who is against captital punishment, so I suggested that purpose built prisons should be built where a convicted murderer should be locked up with absolutely no outside influence. Bare walls and a basic menu for healthy survival. I said if they subsequently got proved to be innocent they could be released with a couple of million compensation.  He was worried they might go 'stare crazy'.   I said well for those who had done it then it would be the next best thing to being dead.

Retribution needs to be brought back.

I would support the death penalty but juries would lack the strength of character to send a man to the gallows. Many extremely guilty men would walk free because of snowflake jurers

[JohnfromUK]

15 minutes ago, Walker570 said:

How many of you support the death penalty for murder  ?    How many support having a 25yr prison sentence minimum for anyone using any object capable of causing death or injury whilst acting in a criminal manner ?     There is no retribution. Prisoners now have a better standard of living inside than they did at home.    I have a friend...reads The Independant by the way ... who is against captital punishment, so I suggested that purpose built prisons should be built where a convicted murderer should be locked up with absolutely no outside influence. Bare walls and a basic menu for healthy survival. I said if they subsequently got proved to be innocent they could be released with a couple of million compensation.  He was worried they might go 'stare crazy'.   I said well for those who had done it then it would be the next best thing to being dead.

Retribution needs to be brought back.

I am not generally supportive of bringing back the death penalty.  However, there are some rare instances where the crime is beyond any doubt and the offenders show no remorse (Lee Rigby's murders for one example - caught red handed and no remorse).

25 yrs for using ...... at judges discretion, probably yes, but not necessarily applied in all cases.

I have a theory that there should be a two tier prison system; a bit like now, but rather more basic for 1st offences.  And tough for repeat/persistent offenders.  Tough means that people should dread going there.

Edited November 7, 2018 by JohnfromUK

[oowee]

6 minutes ago, JohnfromUK said:

OK, I understand a little better what you are saying now, but I'm still very confused.

The list is indeed long.  There come a point with many things where the cost and practicality of fixing isn't viable.  Like a cheap boxlock gun, pitted, dented barrels, ribs loose, loose action, cracked stock.  They can all (probably) be fixed, but it isn't a right or sensible course of action to take.  No certain outcome, huge effort and cost that would be better spent elsewhere.

Yep you can spend elsewhere on all of the agencies dealing with the same problem independently and inefficiently and at higher cost. Worse still you fund them to achieve competing objectives, each undoing the work of the other. You start by taking a slice from all of the budgets and pooling it (operational over all cost saving) and then add some. 

 

I doubt this is practical - getting two 'agencies' top operate together is hard, but many is very hard indeed - especially if the 'subject' isn't co-operative.

It happens now all over the country but they are time limited and poorly funded switching direction with governments. funded annually so concentrate more on short term measures.

 

Who manages their activities?  Is there some central co-ordination agency?  The probation service?  I assume the 'target audience' is the 'offender'?

Yes and yes.

 

You have lost me completely here!  Does this mean 24 hour 'one to one' type supervision?  What is the 'exclusion agenda'?

NO. The central coordinator has a budget to suplement the work of the other agencies. For example. When the coordinating group agree that some pupils need more intensive support and it asks education to provide one on one support (?) for some one it meets the additional cost of that to the school. At the same time it may be agreed that the police will do extra patrols to look at truancy issues and again the extra cost of this would be met. 

I can't answer that - but I expect some of one and some of the other.  What I do think is that some are beyond reform, will never become good law abiding and contributing citizens however much time, money and effort you expend on 'holistic and co-ordinated multi agency approaches' or indeed /medical 'cures' of some type.

Sorry, but I think there are some who should be on the scrap heap, like the boxlock gun (can also apply to best sidelocks as well!).

 

[oowee]

13 minutes ago, Vince Green said:

I would support the death penalty but juries would lack the strength of character to send a man to the gallows. Many extremely guilty men would walk free because of snowflake jurers

? Juries do not decide the sentence in the UK. You could also have a two tier system where when a court decides a life time sentence is appropriate then the case is picked up by a higher court. That court could look at the case and evidence and opportunity for rehabilitation at some future date. If it decided that the evidence was overwhelming and rehabilitation at some date was not going to happen then the death penalty could be applied. Creating a second step safeguard. 

[Vince Green]

3 minutes ago, JohnfromUK said:

I have a theory that there should be a two tier prison system; a bit like now, but rather more basic for 1st offences.  And tough for repeat/persistent offenders.  Tough means that people should dread going there.

You do that and the warders will live in fear of retribution, inside and outside the prison. So much so that, for the money it wouldn't be worth putting their families at risk and they would leave.

[JohnfromUK]

4 minutes ago, oowee said:

The central coordinator has a budget to supplement the work of the other agencies. For example. When the coordinating group agree that some pupils need more intensive support and it asks education to provide one on one support (?) for some one it meets the additional cost of that to the school. At the same time it may be agreed that the police will do extra patrols to look at truancy issues and again the extra cost of this would be met. 

I'm sorry, but it looks to me like a large number of government funded people - well intentioned, but coping with a complex and convoluted group of different 'agencies' with money flowing around like water - and 'blame' going roughly in the direction of the money.  We already sadly have cases (often involving children) where government and council agencies fail to work together and things get missed/lost with tragic consequences.  Perhaps in an ideal world awash with money ............. but that isn't how we are.

2 minutes ago, Vince Green said:

You do that and the warders will live in fear of retribution, inside and outside the prison. So much so that, for the money it wouldn't be worth putting their families at risk and they would leave.

That in itself says a lot about our society.  I don't disagree. 

[oowee]

2 minutes ago, JohnfromUK said:

I'm sorry, but it looks to me like a large number of government funded people - well intentioned, but coping with a complex and convoluted group of different 'agencies' with money flowing around like water - and 'blame' going roughly in the direction of the money.  We already sadly have cases (often involving children) where government and council agencies fail to work together and things get missed/lost with tragic consequences.  Perhaps in an ideal world awash with money ............. but that isn't how we are.

Maybe continue with the sticking plasters, the annual budget, the shifting political priorities, the competing objectives and the spiraling costs. 

[JohnfromUK]

Just now, oowee said:

Maybe continue with the sticking plasters, the annual budget, the shifting political priorities, the competing objectives and the spiraling costs. 

I don't disagree that this (or something along those lines) is what will actually happen ........ but I don't think your idealistic approach is either affordable or workable given the record of police/social services/mental health/CPS/probabtion services co-ordinations.  The individuals often manage to 'make it work' (just look at how police, ambulance and fire can work so well together on major accidents) but the 'organisations' don't.  They often can't even talk to one another on their radios (unless that has changed quite recently).

[oowee]

We could afford it with a proper taxation. Start by collecting more tax fairly with a properly resourced inland revenue.

As an example if i were an employed high earner on £150k I am taxed at a marginal rate of 45%. I have no personal allowance as over £100k it drops by a £ for every £ earnt my pension contribution with tax relief is reduced from £40k to 10k. If I am self employed I can be paid a salary that has no tax, supplemented with profits that are taxed at 18% and take home twice the money of my employed friend for the same level of gross income. There are many people self employed earning a top line income over £150k that could be taxed. 

The black market trade in goods and services for cash should be taxed. 

International company taxation is woeful. 

 

Edited November 8, 2018 by oowee

[Mickeydredd]

6 minutes ago, oowee said:

We could afford it with a proper taxation. Start by collecting more tax fairly with a properly resourced inland revenue.

As an employed high earner on £150k I am taxed at a marginal rate of 45%. I have no personal allowance as over £100k it drops by a £ for every £ earnt my pension contribution with tax relief is reduced from £40k to 10k. If I am self employed I can be paid a salary that has no tax, supplemented with profits that are taxed at 18% and take home twice the money of my employed friend for the same level of gross income. There are many people self employed earning a top line income over £150k that could be taxed. 

The black market trade in goods and services for cash should be taxed. 

International company taxation is woeful. 

 

surely for tax to be "fair" everybody should be taxed at the same rate on their earnings?

[TIGHTCHOKE]

9 minutes ago, oowee said:

We could afford it with a proper taxation. Start by collecting more tax fairly with a properly resourced inland revenue.

As an employed high earner on £150k I am taxed at a marginal rate of 45%. I have no personal allowance as over £100k it drops by a £ for every £ earnt my pension contribution with tax relief is reduced from £40k to 10k. If I am self employed I can be paid a salary that has no tax, supplemented with profits that are taxed at 18% and take home twice the money of my employed friend for the same level of gross income. There are many people self employed earning a top line income over £150k that could be taxed. 

The black market trade in goods and services for cash should be taxed. 

International company taxation is woeful. 

 

I wish we could, as a country give it a try!

[JohnfromUK]

1 minute ago, oowee said:

If I am self employed I can be paid a salary that has no tax, supplemented with profits that are taxed at 18% and take home twice the money of my employed friend for the same level of gross income. There are many people self employed earning a top line income over £150k that could be taxed. 

The black market trade in goods and services for cash should be taxed. 

International company taxation is woeful.

I don't disagree that all of these want sorting out.

 

2 minutes ago, oowee said:

We could afford it with a proper taxation. Start by collecting more tax fairly with a properly resourced inland revenue.

I'm not convinced that even if you had pots of money - it could be made to work.  Getting lots of people from different agencies/employers/disciplines to work well and effectively together is notoriously difficult. 

I don't believe people would want money spent that way either.  We are already the highest taxation (for normal working people) we have ever been I believe - and IF tax was to rise people would wish it to be spent on the health service, education, the police, defence and transport in roughly that order.  Spending on resettlement of offenders, probabtion etc. would be low on priorities for most people.  Money could be poured into the Health service and social care for the elderly (to name but two) in huge quantities reasonably politically easily - and in fact these 'big budget' areas could use up a LOT of money for little visible effect - simply because they are among the largest slices of government budget.

People (and I admit to being one of those) want to see offenders punished - not pampered - which make the issue a political hot potato as well.

[Retsdon]

27 minutes ago, oowee said:

The problem is one of education, opportunity, role models, health, discrimination, housing, drugs, social care, poverty, employment, policing.... the list goes on. You bring all of the agencies responsible for these elements together and you directly manage their activities in regard to how they relate to the target audience.

But what happens when the target audience doesn't want to know? At some point there must be a Yin to the Yang. Yes, there's a very strong argument for widening the range of positive opportunities, educating people better, etc, etc. But there needs also to be a dark side to balance it.  And one of the causes, in my view, of the almost total breakdown of law in certain communities and areas is that we've lost the moral fortitude to do our duty on the dark side. But when the actual situation is that a single London hospital is seeing almost a thousand stabbings a year, then you're fast approaching the point at which normal civil society itself is in danger of breaking down, and eventually society must either succumb completely or fight back.

But of course, fighting involves violence and we've become squeamish about it. I'm all for providing the target audience with opportunities, and redistributing resources more equitably. Nevertheless in the current climate, if I were in a position to dictate English law,  I'd quite literally bring back public floggings for carrying and using weapons in public places. Not just for the weapons, but mainly because these crimes damages the proper functioning of society and that should be an absolute no-no.  Give it  six months and I don't mind betting that knife crime would almost cease completely. Uncivilized? Not at all - it's how things are supposed to work.The duty of a government is to maintain civil society by whatever means necessary. So offer help on one hand, and  threaten massive retribution on the other. Yin and Yang working in harmony. We have these social problems because our laws in western society have become  unbalanced.

[oowee]

2 minutes ago, Retsdon said:

But what happens when the target audience doesn't want to know? At some point there must be a Yin to the Yang. Yes, there's a very strong argument for widening the range of positive opportunities, educating people better, etc, etc. But there needs also to be a dark side to balance it.  And one of the causes, in my view, of the almost total breakdown of law in certain communities and areas is that we've lost the moral fortitude to do our duty on the dark side. But when the actual situation is that a single London hospital is seeing almost a thousand stabbings a year, then you're fast approaching the point at which normal civil society itself is in danger of breaking down, and eventually society must either succumb completely or fight back.

But of course, fighting involves violence and we've become squeamish about it. I'm all for providing the target audience with opportunities, and redistributing resources more equitably. Nevertheless in the current climate, if I were in a position to dictate English law,  I'd quite literally bring back public floggings for carrying and using weapons in public places. Not just for the weapons, but mainly because these crimes damages the proper functioning of society and that should be an absolute no-no.  Give it  six months and I don't mind betting that knife crime would almost cease completely. Uncivilized? Not at all - it's how things are supposed to work.The duty of a government is to maintain civil society by whatever means necessary. So offer help on one hand, and  threaten massive retribution on the other. Yin and Yang working in harmony. We have these social problems because our laws in western society have become  unbalanced.

Fight a threat with more threat and then maybe you end up with armed teachers and Guantanamo bay. I don't disagree that we need a balance. But as the rich get richer and the poor get poorer the rich will have to apply more and more controls as the number of people that fall into the excluded category grows and grows. It's simply a matter of time. The trick is for the rich to make sure that it's the majority that remain on it's side and that the balance does not tip. 

Maybe as the west gets poorer and our dynasty declines it's inevitable that we will be faced with radical social change. 

[Retsdon]

2 minutes ago, oowee said:

But as the rich get richer and the poor get poorer the rich will have to apply more and more controls as the number of people that fall into the excluded category grows and grows.

I think you're conflating two separate issues. I'm all for a massive redistribution of wealth. For a start, not only would it be morally right, it would be good for the economy too. After a certain point, rich people simply hoard their money, the velocity of money decreases and the economy suffers.  Enrich the poor and, among other things  you increase discretionary spending which in turn boosts the economy. More importantly you improve people's lives. We are in agreement.

But none of that has much to do with carrying knives and stabbing people for pretty much no reason. In the Welsh mining towns of the 30s, people were poor as church mice, but young men weren't killing their peers for not showing enough 'respect'. Never - not at all in fact. It simply didn't happen. No, the use of weaponry is a deliberate lifestyle choice, and I'm  sorry, but it is an insult to other poor people who don't go that route to blame poverty for what is nothing else but calculatedly anti-social behavior.

[oowee]

33 minutes ago, Retsdon said:

I think you're conflating two separate issues. I'm all for a massive redistribution of wealth. For a start, not only would it be morally right, it would be good for the economy too. After a certain point, rich people simply hoard their money, the velocity of money decreases and the economy suffers.  Enrich the poor and, among other things  you increase discretionary spending which in turn boosts the economy. More importantly you improve people's lives. We are in agreement.

But none of that has much to do with carrying knives and stabbing people for pretty much no reason. In the Welsh mining towns of the 30s, people were poor as church mice, but young men weren't killing their peers for not showing enough 'respect'. Never - not at all in fact. It simply didn't happen. No, the use of weaponry is a deliberate lifestyle choice, and I'm  sorry, but it is an insult to other poor people who don't go that route to blame poverty for what is nothing else but calculatedly anti-social behavior.

I am not in favour of redistributing wealth but I don't believe the growth of exclusion can continue unchecked. The problem of exclusion results from a combination of many social and economic factors. If you are poor it does not mean that you will resort to criminal behavior but you are far more likely to suffer from social exclusion if you are poor. In the same way you will not solve knife crime by concentrating efforts on those with a knife but have to tackle the wider social and economic causes of the behavior.

Edited November 7, 2018 by oowee

[Rewulf]

11 minutes ago, oowee said:

 you will not solve knife crime by concentrating efforts on those with a knife but have to tackle the wider social and economic causes of the behavior.

Really ?
So, making sure that those caught carrying knives, or indeed those that use them in violence and murder get hefty prison sentences , will not work ?

I personally would try that first, whilst tackling the social issues second.
And you could start with making sure public money (ie the BBC) doesnt get used in glorifying violence, drug dealing and subjugation/sexualisation of women via promotion of grime and drill music.
A more responsible attitude towards the way violence is promoted/glorified on TV and video games wouldnt go amiss either.

' I need to deal drugs and protect my turf with violence, cos the youf club shut down innit ?' is wearing thin.

[oowee]

Nope on its own it wont work. Get one and another two come to the funeral. Clear the knives and out will come the forks. You don't cure a disease by tackling the symptoms. 

Surely we have been trying the same old same, old stuff long enough to learn that we need a concerted effort all working together and put some long term resource behind the problem.