are we becoming a society of thickos?

[12gauge82]

7 hours ago, 243deer said:

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.

They will house murders in open prison, the idea behind it is to normalise offenders at the end of their sentence before release, many get day release ect. Not that I agree with the system. 

[Rewulf]

59 minutes ago, Lloyd90 said:

Its not touched because no one has a workable solution. 

Is anyone even looking at making a workable solution ?
Its a political hot potato, like the NHS , social state ect , what happened to those mantras like 'Tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime..'
Then they do nothing.
Revise sentencing guidelines , with minimum sentences for knife and gun crime, that judges just completely ignore as soon as the defence comes out with the perps bad childhood sob story.

 

1 hour ago, Lloyd90 said:

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

Ive said this plenty of times in these threads, its very difficult for perps to reoffend if you dont let them out in the first place.
Those massive sentences in the US are there for a reason, to keep them in that long, by the time they get out , if ever, they are highly unlikely to be able to re offend, plus Im pretty sure it doesnt cost £40 K a year to keep them in the US.
The threat of not coming out till youre 70 odd years of age might deter an 18 year wannabe London gangsta from stabbing someone surely ?

[Lloyd90]

1 hour ago, 12gauge82 said:

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

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

3. 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. 

1. Does that mean we never had issues with prisons before 1998 then? 
 

2. The legislation isn’t something that can be counted like that. It’s like car insurance, you are protected by it 24/7, 365 days a year. Not just the one day that you have an accident. 
 

3. So we’re back selecting who does and doesn’t get human rights again then?  

[12gauge82]

54 minutes ago, Lloyd90 said:

1. Does that mean we never had issues with prisons before 1998 then? 
 

2. The legislation isn’t something that can be counted like that. It’s like car insurance, you are protected by it 24/7, 365 days a year. Not just the one day that you have an accident. 
 

3. So we’re back selecting who does and doesn’t get human rights again then?  

1 of course we did, just not nearly as many. 

2 I'll agree there, but while that now means if I want to use the women's toilets I can, it also means terrorists can't be kicked out of the country, I know which set of rules I prefer. 

3 easy, decent people get the rights, those who grossly breach others get a much reduced set. 

 

Edited April 27, 2021 by 12gauge82

[udderlyoffroad]

1 hour ago, Lloyd90 said:

3. So we’re back selecting who does and doesn’t get human rights again then?  

We really aren’t Lloyd. Your “applies equally to all” analogy is oversimplified and inaccurate. Prisoners already are subject to reduced human rights (right to family, freedom of assembly, free speech etc) all permissible under the HRA.

I’m merely suggesting the woolly drafting of the HRA is replaced with firm language in a written constitution to further tip this balance in favour of victims and not of convicted violent criminals 

Gets even more complicated when you consider the ECHR: They cannot vote, under the HRA; meanwhile the  ECHR has ruled otherwise.
 

 

 

[Lloyd90]

23 minutes ago, udderlyoffroad said:

We really aren’t Lloyd. Your “applies equally to all” analogy is oversimplified and inaccurate. Prisoners already are subject to reduced human rights (right to family, freedom of assembly, free speech etc) all permissible under the HRA.

I’m merely suggesting the woolly drafting of the HRA is replaced with firm language in a written constitution to further tip this balance in favour of victims and not of convicted violent criminals 

Gets even more complicated when you consider the ECHR: They cannot vote, under the HRA; meanwhile the  ECHR has ruled otherwise.
 

 

 

Fair enough mate I don’t disagree with any of that in principle.  
 

Just can’t see it ever happening, for numerous reasons I’m afraid sorry. 

 

[Rockhamster]

Don't think 'thick' is the right word to use. I do believe, however, people are incredibly gullible and have an increased tendency to comment before reading and, more importantly, understanding before kicking off. 

This is a social media trate. The internet have enabled everybody to become an expert on everything without any real knowledge to back it up if questioned, it at this point the arguments start. We have lost the ability to admit defeat. 

The MSM, television in general is a combination of biased propaganda all dumbed down to almost embarrassing levels of utter stupidity. Spend five minutes, if you can, at any of the current 'behind the scenes' reality programs if you don't believe me. The 'news' is nothing short of scaremongering with the words 'could' and ' might' used way too much. Breaking stories rarely last till the next day which should beg the question how valid was it in the first place? 

Social media also allows a platform for the 'easily offended', or put another way - attention seekers. People have developed an over inflated meaning of their own worth without substance. 

Thick isn't the right word at all......

[Lloyd90]

16 minutes ago, Rockhamster said:

Don't think 'thick' is the right word to use. I do believe, however, people are incredibly gullible and have an increased tendency to comment before reading and, more importantly, understanding before kicking off. 

This is a social media trate. The internet have enabled everybody to become an expert on everything without any real knowledge to back it up if questioned, it at this point the arguments start. We have lost the ability to admit defeat. 

The MSM, television in general is a combination of biased propaganda all dumbed down to almost embarrassing levels of utter stupidity. Spend five minutes, if you can, at any of the current 'behind the scenes' reality programs if you don't believe me. The 'news' is nothing short of scaremongering with the words 'could' and ' might' used way too much. Breaking stories rarely last till the next day which should beg the question how valid was it in the first place? 

Social media also allows a platform for the 'easily offended', or put another way - attention seekers. People have developed an over inflated meaning of their own worth without substance. 

Thick isn't the right word at all......

 

Excellent summary 👍🏻 

 

Social media has allowed situations like a stay at home mum, who’s got 6 kids at age 25 and never worked a day in her life, to voice her views about what’s wrong with the NHS, the Police and the school system. 
 

Along with many other similar characters and situations. 

[oldypigeonpopper]

On 27/04/2021 at 12:06, 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 .

Hello, your bang on scouser , that should free up 100s of prison spaces, or could they plead to stay in uk under the human rights act ? from what I have seen some EU countries prisons are just that, not ones you can walk out on, 

 

Edited May 4, 2021 by oldypigeonpopper

[TIGHTCHOKE]

Don't forget you can get around being deported if you can convince the judge you have a pet cat!

[JohnfromUK]

1 minute ago, TIGHTCHOKE said:

convince the judge you have a pet cat!

or you were contemplating getting one (might have to be a rescue one to be effective)

[TIGHTCHOKE]

Got to be worth a try!