Jump to content

are we becoming a society of thickos?


243deer
 Share

Recommended Posts

From an email from Suffolk Police received today

'Police are appealing for help to trace a prisoner who has absconded from Hollesley Bay.

Zenel Marku, aged 29, was found to be missing earlier yesterday evening, Monday, 26 April.

He is serving a sentence of nine years for drug offences.'

Hollesley Bay is cat 4 historically described as an 'open' prison.

I cannot believe we are housing drug dealers in open prisons and expecting them to stay put. Presuming that the decision to house him there was made by at least a tribunal - that makes 3 folk with limited common sense making decisions that fail to protect the public and in particular fail to protect the young.

All the families that are victims of this persons vile trade must feel completely let down, it is no wonder that ever more folk will now feel so unprotected that they chose to protect themselves and their families whatever the consequences.

I think that the balance of liberalism has swung much too far towards the perpetrators - it is high time that victims are allowed their human rights to trump any rights of offenders.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, 243deer said:

I think that the balance of liberalism has swung much too far towards the perpetrators - it is high time that victims are allowed their human rights to trump any rights of offenders.


Not this nonsense statement again 🤦‍♂️
 

Once again. If anyone thinks you can pick and choose who human rights apply to and only apply them to certain people you like they you have clearly misunderstood the whole point of having them and how they work.  
 

 

 

Re the prisoner. Prisons are tremendously expensive and under funded. 
 

No one wants to pay (significantly) more tax, but expects very high standards from our public services. 
If they put all our taxes up to 40% and 60% instead of 20/40 there’d be threads on here moaning about that! 
 

He will no doubt be picked up at some point, almost impossible to stay off the radar in such a modern world, at which point he will be re-sentenced and punisher accordingly. 

4 minutes ago, oldypigeonpopper said:

Hello, that name sounds foreign ??  We now live in a snowflake society where the Human rights of the victims of crime are not taken into account, 


Individuals can’t break human rights law. Only Governments can. 
 

That’s the whole point of it. It’s legislation to protect you from the Government. 
 

This man broke criminal law. He was charged and sent to prison for it. 
He will no doubt be caught and sent to a further prison at some point in the future. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Lloyd90 said:

Not this nonsense statement again 🤦‍♂️

only nonsense in your eyes. Many folk believe, as I do, that those who chose to live outside of the rules we have decided society should live by should also live outside of the rules of human rights. Just because a system is current does not make it right, nor should it make it permanent. If a system has been tried and it is not working then we should challenge it repeatedly and vigorously and so change it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, 243deer said:

only nonsense in your eyes. Many folk believe, as I do, that those who chose to live outside of the rules we have decided society should live by should also live outside of the rules of human rights. Just because a system is current does not make it right, nor should it make it permanent. If a system has been tried and it is not working then we should challenge it repeatedly and vigorously and so change it.


Nonsense in the eyes of the Law. 

The human rights act does not apply to individuals it is legislation that says that the Government can and can’t do to citizens. 
 

It’s got nothing at all to do with citizens / individuals committing  crimes against one another. 
 

This gentleman broke criminal law, and was caught and sent to prison. He has run off which looks bad, but he will be caught again and sent back for a longer punishment. 
 

 

Once AGAIN, you seem to think that you can decide who is allowed to have human rights and who isn’t. The whole point of them is that they apply across the board.
 

If people cannot see how human rights legislation works on the most basic level, they should probably refrain from commenting on it. 
 

 

 

The situation of this gentleman absconding from prison, or being placed in an open prison in the first place, has absolutely nothing to do with human rights legislation at all. 
 

What it is far more likely to be an issue of, is a prison system that is full beyond measure, under funded, and in need of massive investment and more staff. 
 

 

Your final statement should perhaps read, it is high time we had a properly funded prison services that could meet the purpose it is designed for, to rehabilitate offenders and keep them in properly secure accommodation for the designated terms. 
 

Lack of prison spaces has almost nothing to do with liberalism and almost everything to do with funding constraints and overcrowding. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

we will have to agree to disagree Lloyd and please do not shout at me with capitals as it is extremely rude. Shouting your opinion at folk usually means an unwillingness to admit that their opinion has any merit what so ever. I am sad that you are so blinkered.

2 minutes ago, Lloyd90 said:

Once AGAIN

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, Lloyd90 said:

Not this nonsense statement again

Lloyd , its not nonsense to challenge a system that clearly doesnt work.
Reoffending rates are ridiculous, because prison is NO deterrent .

38 minutes ago, Lloyd90 said:

Re the prisoner. Prisons are tremendously expensive and under funded. 

It costs around £40 K a year to house a prisoner , underfunded ?
It would likely work out better to give them that money and tell them not to re offend again !

Prisons arent underfunded, they are inefficient at doing what they are designed to do.

43 minutes ago, Lloyd90 said:

He will no doubt be picked up at some point, almost impossible to stay off the radar in such a modern world, at which point he will be re-sentenced and punisher accordingly. 

He will disappear back into the ether with his Albanian gangster mates, or change his name and carry on his trade.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, 243deer said:

we will have to agree to disagree Lloyd and please do not shout at me with capitals as it is extremely rude. Shouting your opinion at folk usually means an unwillingness to admit that their opinion has any merit what so ever. I am sad that you are so blinkered.

 


It’s not an opinion it’s a fact of law. 
If you refuse to see how that law is written or how it works that doesn’t make it an opinion. 
 

Capitals are often used to emphasise a point in written text, not to shout. 
 

I’m not blinkered, I am just not sensationalising something that doesn’t apply in the way you are putting it across. 

Edited by Lloyd90
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Rewulf said:

Lloyd , its not nonsense to challenge a system that clearly doesnt work.
Reoffending rates are ridiculous, because prison is NO deterrent .


I agree with you that Prisons are clearly ineffective in many cases. 
Is that because prisons are no deterrent? 
 

Do countries that execute their criminals (the ultimate deterrent surely?) Have low or no crime?

 

What would be the alternative? 
 

However thats got nothing to do with the statement “it is high time that victims are allowed their human rights to trump any rights of offenders”. 
 

 That statement doesn’t make any sense. That was my point. It’s a nonsense statement that’s just thrown around for sensationalism. 
 

The human rights act DOES limit what kind of treatment prisoners get whilst in prison. That’s irrelevant to the human rights of any victim of their crime, as I said, the Government are the only ones that impact on the human rights of victims. The criminals have broken criminal law against their victims, and there why they’ve been charged and sent to prison.  

20 minutes ago, Rewulf said:

It costs around £40 K a year to house a prisoner , underfunded ?
It would likely work out better to give them that money and tell them not to re offend again !

Prisons arent underfunded, they are inefficient at doing what they are designed to do.


What is the solution? I have friends who’ve worked in the big prisons. Some of them only got proper plumbing and working toilets well into the 2000’s. 
 

They have privatised many prisons with G4S etc. Yet they are suffering the same issues, with over crowding and poor conditions. 
 

How can they increase their efficiency? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Lloyd90 said:


Not this nonsense statement again 🤦‍♂️
 

Once again. If anyone thinks you can pick and choose who human rights apply to and only apply them to certain people you like they you have clearly misunderstood the whole point of having them and how they work.  
 

 

 

Re the prisoner. Prisons are tremendously expensive and under funded. 
 

No one wants to pay (significantly) more tax, but expects very high standards from our public services. 
If they put all our taxes up to 40% and 60% instead of 20/40 there’d be threads on here moaning about that! 
 

He will no doubt be picked up at some point, almost impossible to stay off the radar in such a modern world, at which point he will be re-sentenced and punisher accordingly. 


Individuals can’t break human rights law. Only Governments can. 
 

That’s the whole point of it. It’s legislation to protect you from the Government. 
 

This man broke criminal law. He was charged and sent to prison for it. 
He will no doubt be caught and sent to a further prison at some point in the future. 

 

It's possible to do it without raising taxes such as:

  • More prisoners to a cell (it is punishment after all)
  • Make prisoners 'earn their keep', there are many jobs where it's cheaper to buy the products externally, look at these products and make the prisoners actually contribute to society (coal mining and manual digging of ground work on new estates etc), make them actually work off their debt to society
  • Remove luxuries from prisons and only re-provide them to prisoners who are actually 'in credit' with their debt.

Prisons need to be a place were criminals don't want to go, not a 'cushy number' for a few months.

2 minutes ago, scouser said:

Maybe when the criminal is caught, and he was sent to do his sentance in the prison of the country he came from,  now that would be a deterrent .

or maybe we could just outsource and ship them to South America... pretty sure that would be cheaper

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Lloyd90 said:

How can they increase their efficiency? 

Oversight , and by making prison a real deterrent , hard labour, something to be truly feared, this cant happen because of human rights.
At the moment there is too much pandering to the wants and needs of prisoners, who manipulate the system, making a mockery of justice.
Make them work, do something useful to earn their keep, rather than vegetating and becoming frustrated and angry, then as soon as they get out , taking that anger out on the innocent.
Have a real tiered system, where the worst crimes are punished by a stay in the hardest , most remote prisons imaginable.
Open prisons are not for Albanian drug dealers doing 9 years !

The justice system isnt great in this country, the prison system is absolutely shocking in its inneffectiveness .

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Lloyd90 said:

Some of them only got proper plumbing and working toilets well into the 2000’s. 

As a direct result of....human rights legislation!

One of the first challenges in the ECHR was Scottish Prisoners having to 'slop out' - i.e. poop in a bucket and dispose of it in the morning as they went to the showers. 

Why on earth should convicted criminals be afforded anything other than basic sanitation?  Don't like it, don't commit a crime.   By all means provide indoor plumbing in cells to prisoners on remand, before you say anything.

What you appear to be missing Lloyd is that the HRA is an appallingly worded piece of legislation, introduced at the behest of amongst others - Cherie Blair who personally made a killing out of it.

I've said it before on these types of threads, it is perfectly possible for the rights of a victim to trump those of their attacker and maintain compatibility with the European Convention on Human Rights.  But not with the not-fit-for-purpose HRA as it currently exists.

We NEED (yes shouting) a proper written constitution in this country that would define rights and responsibilities, not the f-awful HRA as it currently exists.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, udderlyoffroad said:

As a direct result of....human rights legislation!

One of the first challenges in the ECHR was Scottish Prisoners having to 'slop out' - i.e. poop in a bucket and dispose of it in the morning as they went to the showers. 

Why on earth should convicted criminals be afforded anything other than basic sanitation?  Don't like it, don't commit a crime.   By all means provide indoor plumbing in cells to prisoners on remand, before you say anything.

What you appear to be missing Lloyd is that the HRA is an appallingly worded piece of legislation, introduced at the behest of amongst others - Cherie Blair who personally made a killing out of it.

I've said it before on these types of threads, it is perfectly possible for the rights of a victim to trump those of their attacker and maintain compatibility with the European Convention on Human Rights.  But not with the not-fit-for-purpose HRA as it currently exists.

We NEED (yes shouting) a proper written constitution in this country that would define rights and responsibilities, not the f-awful HRA as it currently exists.

 


Absolutely correct.
 

As a result of HRA legislation, prisoners took action against the Government. 
 

As I said, at no point have the human rights of victims been infringed upon by the convicts, as that is not possible as it only applies to Governments doing acts to their citizens. 
 

I am all for prison reform, although I’m not sure making them some sort of slave / forced labour camps would be effective or even practical either to be honest. 
 

 

 

The point I was trying to make was that statements such as “it is high time that victims are allowed their human rights to trump any rights of offenders.” simply show a misunderstand of HRA legislation, it’s not relevant to the point of discussing failures of the prison system and if we genuinely want to push for reform of the prison system,  it might be best to avoid statements like that, which don’t make sense in law, and therefore mean our arguments put forward are lost from the off set. 
 

1 hour ago, Rewulf said:

Oversight , and by making prison a real deterrent , hard labour, something to be truly feared, this cant happen because of human rights.
At the moment there is too much pandering to the wants and needs of prisoners, who manipulate the system, making a mockery of justice.
Make them work, do something useful to earn their keep, rather than vegetating and becoming frustrated and angry, then as soon as they get out , taking that anger out on the innocent.
Have a real tiered system, where the worst crimes are punished by a stay in the hardest , most remote prisons imaginable.
Open prisons are not for Albanian drug dealers doing 9 years !

The justice system isnt great in this country, the prison system is absolutely shocking in its inneffectiveness .

 


Completely agree with the points you are making. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Lloyd90 said:


Not this nonsense statement again 🤦‍♂️
 

Once again. If anyone thinks you can pick and choose who human rights apply to and only apply them to certain people you like they you have clearly misunderstood the whole point of having them and how they work.  
 

 

 

Re the prisoner. Prisons are tremendously expensive and under funded. 
 

No one wants to pay (significantly) more tax, but expects very high standards from our public services. 
If they put all our taxes up to 40% and 60% instead of 20/40 there’d be threads on here moaning about that! 
 

He will no doubt be picked up at some point, almost impossible to stay off the radar in such a modern world, at which point he will be re-sentenced and punisher accordingly. 


Individuals can’t break human rights law. Only Governments can. 
 

That’s the whole point of it. It’s legislation to protect you from the Government. 
 

This man broke criminal law. He was charged and sent to prison for it. 
He will no doubt be caught and sent to a further prison at some point in the future. 

Hello, ok I will rephrase that, Rights of the victims of crime 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, TIGHTCHOKE said:

Something needs to be done!

It will be - it will be added to the long list of 'something needs to be done' subjects, somewhere near the bottom - in the full and certain knowledge  that the 2nd half of that list will never be reached.

Actually, I'm sure getting much 'tougher' on offenders (except of course the motorist!) in all ways would be politically popular - but it isn't easy to get laws drafted or Parliament to agree them - so it doesn't happen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, JohnfromUK said:

but it isn't easy to get laws drafted or Parliament to agree them

Thats an interesting conundrum.
It seems fairly easy to get 'other' laws drafted , proposed, and voted on ? Look at covid 'laws' for example.

I think it helps if the new laws are actually proposed in the first place, but strangely , no one wants to go near the prison reform thing , like interfering with the social state, its a vote killer.
Barely a day goes by where the judicial or prison system has let victims down...Badly, sometimes at the cost of innocent lives, so its not like the public will isnt there to support reform.
Like Udderly said , we need a constitution , where the rights of victims, and criminals are enshrined, because this system we have isnt working for the majority.
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Rewulf said:

Thats an interesting conundrum.
It seems fairly easy to get 'other' laws drafted , proposed, and voted on ? Look at covid 'laws' for example.

I think it helps if the new laws are actually proposed in the first place, but strangely , no one wants to go near the prison reform thing , like interfering with the social state, its a vote killer.
Barely a day goes by where the judicial or prison system has let victims down...Badly, sometimes at the cost of innocent lives, so its not like the public will isnt there to support reform.
Like Udderly said , we need a constitution , where the rights of victims, and criminals are enshrined, because this system we have isnt working for the majority.
 


Its not touched because no one has a workable solution. 
 

The voting public would obviously support a “tough on crime” approach, until some huge system is put in place at massive cost and that’s just as ineffective as the current system we already have. 
 

Even the suggestions above of forced Labour etc when looked at in practice are unworkable or unrealistic. 
 

There are countries around the world who have systems like that, they still have poor prison systems, repeat offenders and crime. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Rewulf said:

Look at covid 'laws' for example.

The passed very simply - the Labour party supported them, and so even with a large number of dissenters on his own side - Johnson could easily get them past.

But if you look at the classic 'old chestnut' of travellers, short sentences, and many other law and order matters - there was never a vote put which (in my view) reflected public opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Lloyd90 said:


Not this nonsense statement again 🤦‍♂️
 

Once again. If anyone thinks you can pick and choose who human rights apply to and only apply them to certain people you like they you have clearly misunderstood the whole point of having them and how they work.  
 

 

 

Re the prisoner. Prisons are tremendously expensive and under funded. 
 

No one wants to pay (significantly) more tax, but expects very high standards from our public services. 
If they put all our taxes up to 40% and 60% instead of 20/40 there’d be threads on here moaning about that! 
 

He will no doubt be picked up at some point, almost impossible to stay off the radar in such a modern world, at which point he will be re-sentenced and punisher accordingly. 


Individuals can’t break human rights law. Only Governments can. 
 

That’s the whole point of it. It’s legislation to protect you from the Government. 
 

This man broke criminal law. He was charged and sent to prison for it. 
He will no doubt be caught and sent to a further prison at some point in the future. 

Answer me this. What was so bad about uk law before 1998 when the HRA came into force? 

The Human Rights Act is most often used to defend criminals and not normal people. 

The way I see it, if you grossly breach someone else's human rights you deserve none or at least a watered down version. Prisons could then become cheap again. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...