Policing

[sunnysan]

Any catch the London Tonight issue on the MET?

They where comparing the MET to the police in LA, and whether the program was biased or not I dunno, but they seemed to have ACTUAL live people in LA actually saying that crime has gone down?!?!? No warped NL stats. Actual examples of urban regeneration owing to crime reduction and stats which show a drop in crime by a third and pulic opinion to back it up.

Then, although I have not been there I have heard the LAPD is very harsh and when they talk to you, you are better off suffixing every sentence with sir

It seems one of the biggest problems with the MET is that their are very blurred lines of accountability which would mean that even if Red Ken wanted to do anything he couldnt becuase Big Ears decides what the MET can do or not?

The woman who was defending the METS policies at Scatland yard didnt really do much to explain what was going on other than to spew loads of NL garbage with the predictable references to choice, service to the public, interaction with the community etc. By comparison the guys in LA where a lot more up front about whats going on and apparently have the results and pulic opinion to prove it

My opinion is that nobody respects the police here, I mean FFS, if you where a Crack Dealer and you where given an ASBO what would you do? I say bring on zero tolerance policing....

[Sputnik]

Hear, hear.

I am a big fan of the '3 strikes and you're out' law enforcement they have in some/most/all states over the pond - definately California (note to self: research!). It's one thing the yanks have got right. Nicked a car 3 times? Got caught 3 times? Well you deserve 20 years.

We are a lily livered nation when it comes to 'doing the right thing'.
Since when has 'reducation' and softly, softly 'lets assign you a social worker' convinced some scrote to turn his back on an easy life of crime. The only book they're going to learn from is the one that gets thrown at them.

*Personal pet hate aired*

....and breath.....

[zathras]

I say bring on zero tolerance policing....

Bring it on but that means every law. That includes cyclists who ignore red lights, ride on the pavement.

That means the person smoking a joint

That means the person dropping litter

The trouble here is that the law is something that is considered a choice to obey. Cyclists routinely break the law to the point hardly any of them actually obey it.

Once you allow someone to make a choice as to which rules to obey then you create the environment allowing other laws to be obeyed or ignored. Like theft, petty vandalism.

The other problem is that we equate various problems with in-animate objects. So we have drunk hooligans and football hooligans. The drink and football are not capable of thought, they impart nothing to the hooligan who made his or her choice to act like it and they should suffer the consequences of that choice. Call a hooligan a hooligan, and treat them as such. Going to a sporting event is no excuse.

[Dundeegeorge]

3 strikes? You ******* liberal

Hear, hear.

I am a big fan of the '3 strikes and you're out' law enforcement they have in some/most/all states over the pond - definately California (note to self: research!). It's one thing the yanks have got right. Nicked a car 3 times? Got caught 3 times? Well you deserve 20 years.

We are a lily livered nation when it comes to 'doing the right thing'.
Since when has 'reducation' and softly, softly 'lets assign you a social worker' convinced some scrote to turn his back on an easy life of crime. The only book they're going to learn from is the one that gets thrown at them.

*Personal pet hate aired*

....and breath.....

If you've been caught breaking into someone's house, the 1st time you go to jail. If on your release you're caught again, you go to jail forever, with the option of negotiating a release by taking part in testing new drugs.

[VectraMan]

I am a big fan of the '3 strikes and you're out' law enforcement

I admit to being a bit of a liberal, and I think there's reasons to be lenient in the cases of first offenders who may have had a hard time for whatever reason and may have made some poor choices. But if they do it again, and certainly if they're caught a third time then you have to assume this is a career criminal and they need to do some serious jail time. I don't see how anyone can really argue against that, be they liberal or Daily Mail reader.

I don't agree with zero tolerance, I think you'd end up with far too many people in jail which is counter productive, but there needs to be limited tolerance.

[The Lone Gunman]

Hear, hear.

I am a big fan of the '3 strikes and you're out' law enforcement they have in some/most/all states over the pond - definately California (note to self: research!). It's one thing the yanks have got right. Nicked a car 3 times? Got caught 3 times? Well you deserve 20 years.

We are a lily livered nation when it comes to 'doing the right thing'.
Since when has 'reducation' and softly, softly 'lets assign you a social worker' convinced some scrote to turn his back on an easy life of crime. The only book they're going to learn from is the one that gets thrown at them.

*Personal pet hate aired*

....and breath.....

Recidivism is running at about 70% last I looked so re-education works for 30%. That has got to be a good thing.
3 strikes is a good idea (IMHO) though as I have said before, I favour a tarrif system with discounts.

e.g. Burglary carries 5 years. 1st offence allows 50% reduction, not wasting courts time carries further 25% not wasting Police time carries further.
Figures are for example so dont argue about them.
Doing a runner or lying at interview removes Police discount. Pleading not guilty removes court discount and so on.
All puts pressure on crim not to take the piss. At the moment they make up any story knowing that once they get to court they can change their plea and rely on the liberal system to give them a minimum sentence.

[expat]

Recidivism is running at about 70% last I looked so re-education works for 30%. That has got to be a good thing.
3 strikes is a good idea (IMHO) though as I have said before, I favour a tarrif system with discounts.

e.g. Burglary carries 5 years. 1st offence allows 50% reduction, not wasting courts time carries further 25% not wasting Police time carries further.
Figures are for example so dont argue about them.
Doing a runner or lying at interview removes Police discount. Pleading not guilty removes court discount and so on.
All puts pressure on crim not to take the piss. At the moment they make up any story knowing that once they get to court they can change their plea and rely on the liberal system to give them a minimum sentence.

It does seem to me to make sense that, after someone has given excellent grounds for taking them to be a career criminal, you would treat them differently from someone who might be reformed or deterred by a normal sentence: for those who have already thrown away that opportunity more than once, the onus would shift and you would want to see some sign that they had changed, before they easily get out (or get off) again.

In the case of particularly offensive personal violence, especially sexual and/or deranged in nature, we might want some convincing that they had changed before contemplating allowing them to walk the streets again.

[sasguru]

What wrong with you scum, man? Peace and Love, man. Freedom from the pigs. Yeah. Right on. Groovy.

[bogeyman]

Bring it on but that means every law. That includes cyclists who ignore red lights, ride on the pavement.

That means the person smoking a joint

That means the person dropping litter

It also means the poor schmuck that puts Golliwogs in his shop window.

[Sputnik]

My rant was pretty generic i admit, and i'm sure some educated offenders go on to be 'law-abiding citizens' - although Bliar is technically one of those so i'm not sure about the validity of the phrase.
I think what is desperately missing is a sensible sentencing structure. Under the current guidelines one judge might decide on one thing, another on something different. Whats with sentencing some coffin-dodger who won't pay his council tax to a month in prison, while work-shy scrotes get community service for crimes which have far more of an impact on their victim. Justice my arse.

I have a friend who is a solicitor who told me once of a young lad of maybe 12 who got nicked for the umpteenth time. He was sat in the interview with his mum, calling the coppers c***s, my friend - defending him - a c***. All in front of his mum. Eventually she turns on him and tells him to stop using the C word and says 'how many times have i told you not to use that. Say tw@t' instead!! Class.