Alternative Policing Options

[GMR]

One gun, is that is?

Actually; try reading back to what I answered to.

Speeding is anti-social and is far more likely to result in a death, why wouldn't you lock up them up?

The word here is intent. Anti-social behaviour is as the name suggests. Speeding can kill... as somebody cycling can by hitting a pedestrian or tripping over a broken pavement, which the council didn’t fix. However, they didn’t intend to kill them deliberately.

This is the problem when you start to pull apart the arguments of those who say we should get tough on crime. At some point in the debate they always say "well, I didn't mean get tough on THAT sort of crime, on THOSE sort of people." and their double standards are exposed.

There are no double standards here user... that is just in your mind. I never said tough on crime on every subject, only where it is needed. Nor did anybody else.

If you're going to get tough on crime you need to get tough on all crime. Remember, justice supposed to be blind.

Rubbish... again this is your interpretation and you’ll find you are a lone wolf on this. No sane person would agree with you here user.

[user23]

Rubbish... again this is your interpretation and you’ll find you are a lone wolf on this. No sane person would agree with you here user.

You've just posted that no sane person would agree that if you're going to get tough on crime you need to get tough on all crime and that justice supposed to be blind.

Selective justice is no justice at all.

[GMR]

You've just posted that no sane person would agree that if you're going to get tough on crime you need to get tough on all crime and that justice supposed to be blind.

It was Thomas Otway who said "Justice is lame as well as blind, amongst us.

[Biker1]

You're on your own here Glenn.

Good Luck!!

It's like a game of tic tac toe - you can't win!!

[user23]

It was Thomas Otway who said "Justice is lame as well as blind, amongst us.

It's not blind if you're only applying the law to selective groups.

[GMR]

It's not blind if you're only applying the law to selective groups.

We are not talking about applying the law to selective groups, but the degree which that law is applied to certain groups. In fac the government do that anyway.

[JeffG]

What sort of message does getting tough on offenders that we can't empathise with send out?

Huh?

Yes, I'm struggling with that one as well; care to elucidate user23?

It's just an awkward construction : treat it like a mathematical equation and put some brackets in, and all becomes clear:

What sort of message does [getting tough on (offenders that we can't empathise with)] send out?

(and user23 - we all do it on occasions and it's perfectly clear to us what we meant )

[user23]

We are not talking about applying the law to selective groups, but the degree which that law is applied to certain groups. In fac the government do that anyway.

We're talking about how some wish to apply the law differently to groups they have a like and a dislike for.

It's generally where those who say we should get tough on crime's arguments fall apart, "well I didn't mean we should get tough on THOSE crimes". Get tough on all crime or not at all or one just creates social problems for oneself in the long run.

[GMR]

We're talking about how some wish to apply the law differently to groups they have a like and a dislike for.

No... we are talking about how certain elements in our society treat others; and from that point how we punish them for it. That is what the law does at the moment anyway.

It's generally where those who say we should get tough on crime's arguments fall apart, "well I didn't mean we should get tough on THOSE crimes". Get tough on all crime or not at all or one just creates social problems for oneself in the long run.

Well, that’s how you read it, I don’t. We are talking about tough on serious crime and as I pointed out, the government does that anyway. If you are saying I am wrong, then you are also saying the government is wrong.

[user23]

Well, that’s how you read it, I don’t. We are talking about tough on serious crime and as I pointed out, the government does that anyway. If you are saying I am wrong, then you are also saying the government is wrong.

Are the Government's current policies on crime right, in your view?

[Iommi]

I'm not keen on private security, albeit in some situations, might be necessary. I thinking of how devious private car clamping firms operate, I am therefore uncomfortable with this 'private' solution being rolled out even further.

[GMR]

Are the Government's current policies on crime right, in your view?

No and this is not just my view.

[GMR]

I'm not keen on private security, albeit in some situations, might be necessary. I thinking of how devious private car clamping firms operate, I am therefore uncomfortable with this 'private' solution being rolled out even further.

I agree and if we had a law enforcement that dealt with the problems that are facing our society to the satisfaction of the people then you wouldn't need private security firms.

[Strafin]

I think that although he is generally an ingnoramus, and best ignored, I do think User23 has a point. Look at the Ronnie Biggs situation. He was part of a massive, violent armed robbery and people think it's right that he be released early,even though he also escaped prison, and profited massivley from his crime all the time sneering at the UK and the taxpayers. But he was a bit of a cheeky chappy so he should get released. The 17 year old down the road doing far less should get locked up for life?!?! It doesn't make sense!

[Biker1]

Who thinks it's right he should be released?

[GMR]

I think that although he is generally an ingnoramus, and best ignored, I do think User23 has a point. Look at the Ronnie Biggs situation. He was part of a massive, violent armed robbery and people think it's right that he be released early,even though he also escaped prison, and profited massivley from his crime all the time sneering at the UK and the taxpayers. But he was a bit of a cheeky chappy so he should get released. The 17 year old down the road doing far less should get locked up for life?!?! It doesn't make sense!

We are not talking about locking people up for doing less or that he should be got off.... but people who have done worse should be punished more.

A child abuser, rapist and murder could get less than Biggs... is that right?

[Strafin]

We are not talking about locking people up for doing less or that he should be got off.... but people who have done worse should be punished more.

A child abuser, rapist and murder could get less than Biggs... is that right?

No but that doesn't Biggs shouldn't have served longer either.

[Strafin]

Who thinks it's right he should be released?

Plenty of people, including Jack Straw, that's why he was.

[Biker1]

Plenty of people, including Jack Straw, that's why he was.

Do you think more people think he should be released than those who don't?

[JeffG]

This is going wildly off-topic. There is already a Ronald Briggs (sic) topic.