NationStates Jolt Archive

Imagine a fight starts outside your house. It escalates into two gang fights. Other people intervene and try to stop it, but the majority of each gang wants it to continue so they ignore you, and the main fighters are busy fighting so they ignore you. There's no way this is going to be stopped any time soon, until... "it's the police!" is shouted at the sound of cop cars screeching round the corner. At the sight of the cops, people stop and some flee. Some are arrested, and most don't violently resist arrest.

It seems that in even the most out-of-control situations, the one force that can sort it out (whether they actually bother to try is another matter) is the police force, even when the criminals know they may get a stupid sentence due to stupid laws. Whether it's respect for them, respect for their authority, or fear (of being arrested etc.), even if people don't immediately stop, they generally stop when the police begin to speak to them - even if they have a knife or a gun and the cops are unarmed.

At least it used to be like that, up until very recently. Considering the amount of attacks on cops this year, it seems that their authority is disappearing fast.

What's your view on this and do you have any suggestions to contribute?

There only scared cause of alleged police brutality. Should be no such thing really. Should be able to beat the crap out of them:)

Hmm, I wasn't aware there was a problem with the erosion of police authority. I am aware that one police officer was shot dead last year, but other than that I haven't really heard that much about attacks on police.

It almost feels the police don't want to be respected any more, and they don't want to actually sort out criminals. They just want to fine people to get money. Maybe it's just me, but of late it seems any perceived social problem - large or small, real or imaginary - winds up with the answer: "On the spot fine!".

Coupled with any criminals they do accidentally catch they just let out again. What was the point? Why do we bother with them?

The system where police patrolled on the beat and were unarmed was better by far than today's system where they drive around in cars and carry guns. In those days, people respected them simply because they were present and so acted as an additional witness. They didn't need to be armed.

The system where police patrolled on the beat and were unarmed was better by far than today's system where they drive around in cars and carry guns. In those days, people respected them simply because they were present and so acted as an additional witness. They didn't need to be armed.

I was referring to UK police, as stated in the thread title.

Theres always gonna be a few nut jobs and a few people with itchy trigger fingers, no matter how much the police is respected.

I think the police in Britain do a good job, they are just held back by various human rights and legal features when arresting and prosecuting.

I was referring to UK police, as stated in the thread title.

I was also referring to the UK but I was generalising. I was coming from the point of view of Peter Hitchen's book "A Brief History Of Crime".

I think the police in Britain do a good job, they are just held back by various human rights and legal features when arresting and prosecuting.

The Human Rights Act is greatly misunderstood by tabloid newspapers. To be fair to the newspapers, they greatly misunderstand almost everything.

I was also referring to the UK but I was generalising. I was coming from the point of view of Peter Hitchen's book "A Brief History Of Crime".

So where did the "today's system where they drive around in cars and carry guns" come from then?

So where did the "today's system where they drive around in cars and carry guns" come from then?

Aren't most police officers armed in the UK?

Aren't most police officers armed in the UK?

Not with guns, nope. Batons, spray and possibly tasers, these days. Are the Gardai armed?

Oh, and I'm pretty sure that the odds of a beat officer coming within 100m of a crime being committed are something ridiculous. They just make people feel safer.

Aren't most police officers armed in the UK?

Nope, very few are; only the Armed Response Units.

The Human Rights Act is greatly misunderstood by tabloid newspapers. To be fair to the newspapers, they greatly misunderstand almost everything.

Unfortunately it seems judges misunderstand the Human Rights Act too. There's nothing (or very little) actually wrong with the text of the Human Rights Act, and it allows citizens of the UK a chance to get juctice when their authorities act wrongly - it's the way that it's interpreted that makes it seem bad, for example:

Under ordinary UK legislation, it's illegal to severely harm a child. Even if someone claims a particular violent practice is "part of their religion", usually the judge will put the rights of the child above the human rights of the abuser to be able to freely practice their religion.

Under Human Rights Act legislation, a person has the right not to be forced to be in their country if the country is a dictatorship (or some right like that anyway). However, if that person harms someone in this country, the right of the person to be free from harm overrrules the right of the attacker to not be sent back to their own country, just as in the example above the right of a child overrules the right to practice religion. Unfortunately, judges have in the past misinterpreted the law and put too much weight on the criminal's supposed 'human rights' under the Human Rights Act.

The Act does not need to be repealed - all is needed are clear guidelines to judges telling them to put the rights of victims above the rights of criminals. But a better option would be to replace the judges with people who are actually competent.

The Act does not need to be repealed - all is needed are clear guidelines to judges telling them to put the rights of victims above the rights of criminals. But a better option would be to replace the judges with people who are actually competent.

Aye. I've read the Act. It's fine (IMO, unless certain legal definitions are quite unusual, anyway; lawyers are like that), and just about every paragraph contains something along the lines of "except to protect morality, public decency and uphold the law".
I imagine that the number of cases where The Dreaded Act is wheeled out for daft things is tiny, but newspapers enjoy making a fuss. Sadly they draw the wrong conclusions.

we heard some UK bobbies in confession...
It's true they liked to walk by any weather.

Nowadays it's not possible, mr t blair gave them four times more papers to fill (even one when nothing happened that bloody sunny day) and 3 000 more crimes to learn and punish.

we heard some UK bobbies in confession...
It's true they liked to walk by any weather.

Nowadays it's not possible, mr t blair gave them four times more papers to fill (even one when nothing happened that bloody sunny day) and 3 000 more crimes to learn and punish.

What is that rubbish you've scrawled? Is it cockeney slang of some sort? Some sort of attempt at socio political criticism?;)

I always liked the Police. I thought it was shame when Sting got a swelled head and decided to pursue a solo career.

I think the police should be freed from political correctness and human rights legislation, as people who are contemptous of the laws of society are not civilised and therefore have no rights, only priviledges, which they have lost by breaking the law.
"the borders of civilisation are kept safe by rough men, abroad in the night and prepared to do violence"
It's time to take off the velvet gloves and show the chavscum that our kindness is not weakness, as they too thick to realise this for themselves.
Merry Xmas everybody!

Here, the police are generally either feared or treated with a resigned attitude. Fear if you don't have money or connections cause they'll usually fabricate drug results against you when they arrest you if you can't pay them off or get contrary evidence. Resigned if you have money cause they'll ask for big bucks.

Nope, very few are; only the Armed Response Units.

And almost the entirity of the PSNI. But hey, everyone on the so called 'mainland' always forgets them anyhow.

And almost the entirity of the PSNI. But hey, everyone on the so called 'mainland' always forgets them anyhow.

Awwww.... there there. *pats on back* :D

Awwww.... there there. *pats on back* :D

Anyhoo: ain't Airport Police in the rest of the UK standardly armed these days as well? I'm too lazy to Google it right now.

*Is shocked that no-one has made an amusing pun involving Sting*

*Is shocked that no-one has made an amusing pun involving Sting*

*Is even more shocked at the fact that Underdownia either hasn't been paying attention or is seriously lacking in rudimentary reading skills*

*Is shocked that no-one has made an amusing pun involving Sting*

You might look into reading (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12116917&postcount=18). :p

*Is even more shocked at the fact that Underdownia either hasn't been paying attention or is seriously lacking in rudimentary reading skills*

Doh!

Hmm, I wasn't aware there was a problem with the erosion of police authority. I am aware that one police officer was shot dead last year, but other than that I haven't really heard that much about attacks on police.
Gotta love England, only 1 cop shot?!?! And your police aren't armed! Hehe, it's either your cops are good at dodging, or you criminals have bad aim!

Imagine a fight starts outside your house.

Is it on my property?

If so, they are told to get off my property. Refusal or paying no heed prompts me to use my .308 to convince them to go elsewhere.

If not on my property, I just call 911 and set up a chair to watch until the cops show.

Is it on my property?

If so, they are told to get off my property. Refusal or paying no heed prompts me to use my .308 to convince them to go elsewhere.

If not on my property, I just call 911 and set up a chair to watch until the cops show.

Is your property in the UK? Hmmmm.

Is your property in the UK? Hmmmm.

Does it matter?

Does it matter?

Given that the discussion is called 'The police (UK)' and is about the police in the UK, I think there is more than a shred of relevance in my question.

Does it matter?

It certainly does as you'll be the one arrested for illegally owning a handgun. And rightly so, too.

Is your property in the UK? Hmmmm.

Not if he expects dialing 911 to do anything.

Resisting arrest in the US is a fairly dumb thing, threatening the life of a cop is a good way to get your ass blown away.

There's a strangely high rate of suicides and deaths in people who shoot at cops. Seems they tend to turn their guns on themselves when the police arrive.

Given that the discussion is called 'The police (UK)' and is about the police in the UK, I think there is more than a shred of relevance in my question.

I didn't see the notice specifying that responses must be UK-based only.

Not if he expects dialing 911 to do anything.

Resisting arrest in the US is a fairly dumb thing, threatening the life of a cop is a good way to get your ass blown away.

There's a strangely high rate of suicides and deaths in people who shoot at cops. Seems they tend to turn their guns on themselves when the police arrive.

Though it does give us something to giggle at sometimes on the reality cop shows. Im thinking of the guy that tries to stand up 5 times in a row after being tasered. Frankly I was impressed with his determination and staying power.

That was off topic, bad Mog!!!

To bring me back in line(ish) I think the Police in the UK do a difficult job made harder by having their authority compromised by Political Correctness.

It certainly does as you'll be the one arrested for illegally owning a handgun. And rightly so, too.

A .308 handgun?

Whoa! Stout wrists you got there...

A .308 handgun?

Whoa! Stout wrists you got there...

I am rather proud of my ignorance of firearms actually........

I am rather proud of my ignorance of firearms actually........

Must be European...

Not if he expects dialing 911 to do anything.

Could be Canada, IIRC.

Must be European...

British.
I did tell you how the British tended to feel about guns in that other thread...

Must be European...

British actually.

Well, technically I have dual citizenship, Anglo-French.

British actually.

Well, technically I have dual citizenship, Anglo-French.

French?!?

Ack!

Leaving off the fun bits about surrender, I've never understood the animosity that England and Europe hold for firearms. Probably the same lack of understanding that Compulsive Depression had for why we Americans cherish them - well, some of us. Handgun Control is an American group.

I mean, one group opposes firearms, but wants to force that opposition onto others - willing or not.

The other group supports firearms, but has no desire to force it onto others. You don't like guns? Fine. Don't get one. But, don't stop me from getting one, because YOU don't like them.

French?!?

Ack!

Leaving off the fun bits about surrender, I've never understood the animosity that England and Europe hold for firearms. Probably the same lack of understanding that Compulsive Depression had for why we Americans cherish them - well, some of us. Handgun Control is an American group.

I mean, one group opposes firearms, but wants to force that opposition onto others - willing or not.

The other group supports firearms, but has no desire to force it onto others. You don't like guns? Fine. Don't get one. But, don't stop me from getting one, because YOU don't like them.

Because your perfectly sane and would never go on a kill crazy rampage with one. You would never in the heat of the moment lash out with it. And who exactly decides this sort of crucial information? You?

EDIT; BTW, I earned my French passport, anyone who mentions the words "surrender" and "the French", no matter how jokingly, is, in my book, automatically an ill informed idiot who knows very little about either history or the French.

Because your perfectly sane and would never go on a kill crazy rampage with one. You would never in the heat of the moment lash out with it. And who exactly decides this sort of crucial information? You?

Ah. I see.

So, all men must be castrated because, having a penis, they might rape someone in a fit of insanity.

Right?

EDIT; BTW, I earned my French passport, anyone who mentions the words "surrender" and "the French", no matter how jokingly, is, in my book, automatically an ill informed idiot who knows very little about either history or the French.

Vichy ring any bells? How about June 1940?

Vichy ring any bells? How about June 1940?

The Free French ring any bells? How about June 1940-May 1945?

Ah. I see.

So, all men must be castrated because, having a penis, they might rape someone in a fit of insanity.

Right?



Vichy ring any bells? How about June 1940?

A penis is designed for procreation, a gun is designed to kill. Guess which one needs to be restricted?

France has the grace and poise and to give up when they are beaten to allow them to fight another day. De Gaulle ring any bells? You guys still won't admit you lost the Vietnam war.

i got beaten up by four guys right in front of the police for trying to break up a fight between my flatmate and a freind of those that beat me up. the police did nothing to intervene and the guys were sent on their way once they'd finished with me.

on another occaision i got arrested for 'assaulting' a bouncer who was a foot taller and wider than me, all i did was push at him, i actually went backwards rather than affect him in any way. i got arrested, put in a cell and charged, narrowly escaped a court summons.

my respect for the police is not great.

The Free French ring any bells? How about June 1940-May 1945?

Where were they when they were needed? Prior to June 1940?

Where were they when they were needed? Prior to June 1940?

Jeez, they didn't exist, because the French army was fighting the Germans, several years before your President got off his self rightous arse to fight the one of the greatest evils the world has ever seen. Remember what I said about not knowing your history? Thanks for proving my point for me. :D

Where were they when they were needed? Prior to June 1940?

Oh dear. That wasn't the best thing for an American to say.
But still; this was a thread about the British Police being muppets, so how's about Ollieland and you go to a different thread about America vs. France? Please?

Oh dear. The preview tells me I'm too late.

Oh dear. That wasn't the best thing for an American to say.
But still; this was a thread about the British Police being muppets, so how's about Ollieland and you go to a different thread about America vs. France? Please?

Oh dear. The preview tells me I'm too late.

Apologies for getting a bee in my bonnet, I just don't like ignorance.

In response to the OP and back on topic, I don't think it is the police themselves at fault, more the legal system itself. The police do a pretty good job at removing criminals from the streets, the problem lies in the judicial system thats puts them back on the streets with little or no punishment.

A penis is designed for procreation, a gun is designed to kill.

Really? Then why are cops carrying them? Are cops out to kill?

Would you mind explaining why the dozen-plus firearms I own are malfunctioning?

And, I have a gay friend who is curious about why his penis is malfunctioning.

But, joking aside, the only thing a firearm is DESIGNED to do is to provide a means to cast a projectile to some sort of distance. That's the DESIGN.

It may be USED to kill someone, it may also be USED to protect someone. Heck, it may even be USED to aid in law enforcement.

As for a penis, it can be USED to procreate. It may also be USED to spread AIDS or some other STD. It may be used to provide entertainment. It may be used for other things than procreation.

France has the grace and poise and to give up when they are beaten to allow them to fight another day.

Yeah, that must be it. They surrendered stylishly. What it was is that they didn't want their precious Paris dinged up.

De Gaulle ring any bells?

What about him? He didn't represent France until AFTER the war.

You guys still won't admit you lost the Vietnam war.

We didn't lose. We left. We took our toys and went home. Please point out the terms of our surrender to North Viet Nam.

We shouldn't have left. But, I can't change that.

South Viet Nam lost.

Really? Then why are cops carrying them? Are cops out to kill?

Would you mind explaining why the dozen-plus firearms I own are malfunctioning?

And, I have a gay friend who is curious about why his penis is malfunctioning.

But, joking aside, the only thing a firearm is DESIGNED to do is to provide a means to cast a projectile to some sort of distance. That's the DESIGN.

It may be USED to kill someone, it may also be USED to protect someone. Heck, it may even be USED to aid in law enforcement.

As for a penis, it can be USED to procreate. It may also be USED to spread AIDS or some other STD. It may be used to provide entertainment. It may be used for other things than procreation.



Yeah, that must be it. They surrendered stylishly. What it was is that they didn't want their precious Paris dinged up.



What about him? He didn't represent France until AFTER the war.



We didn't lose. We left. We took our toys and went home. Please point out the terms of our surrender to North Viet Nam.

We shouldn't have left. But, I can't change that.

South Viet Nam lost.

Rhetoric, rhetoric, etc, etc, make a thread and I'll debate you, back on topic please.

In response to the OP and back on topic, I don't think it is the police themselves at fault, more the legal system itself. The police do a pretty good job at removing criminals from the streets, the problem lies in the judicial system thats puts them back on the streets with little or no punishment.
But what about when the police happily ignore crime, as in Infinite Revolution's case up there? Or are they rare, unfortunate events?

What about when they just don't seem to care about reported crimes? Just because they have more important things to worry about?

But what about when the police happily ignore crime, as in Infinite Revolution's case up there? Or are they rare, unfortunate events?

What about when they just don't seem to care about reported crimes? Just because they have more important things to worry about?

In my own experience, yes, I would say it is a rare occurence. I work as a train conductor and deal with British Transport Police on a regular basis. I can honestly say that they show interest and care, Often they will bemoan the fact that arresting an individual is a waste of time as either the CPS won't prosecute or they will just get a slap on the wrist, but, as I say, this is the fault of the system, not the police themselves.

Jeez, they didn't exist, because the French army was fighting the Germans, several years

Yeah.

"Several years." More on this in a bit.

You must mean that ol' Phony War, eh? Certainly not the six weeks from the invasion of France to the surrender?

before your President got off his self rightous arse to fight the one of the greatest evils the world has ever seen.

Ah, Stanley? FDR was chomping at the bit to get in a scrape with Germany. CONGRESS wouldn't let him. That's why we supplied destroyer escorts to British convoys - as a NEUTRAL nation. Some neutrality, eh?

Remember what I said about not knowing your history?

Yup. Ollie, meet my friend the mirror.

So, about that "several years" that France bravely and fabulously fought Germany. You do know that World War II started in Sep 1939, right? Less than a year before the surrender?

Oh, wait. I forgot. "Several years" of fighting. I guess you DON'T know that. My mistake.

Thanks for proving my point for me. :D

And, that point was, what again?

Yeah.

"Several years." More on this in a bit.

You must mean that ol' Phony War, eh? Certainly not the six weeks from the invasion of France to the surrender?



Ah, Stanley? FDR was chomping at the bit to get in a scrape with Germany. CONGRESS wouldn't let him. That's why we supplied destroyer escorts to British convoys - as a NEUTRAL nation. Some neutrality, eh?



Yup. Ollie, meet my friend the mirror.

So, about that "several years" that France bravely and fabulously fought Germany. You do know that World War II started in Sep 1939, right? Less than a year before the surrender?

Oh, wait. I forgot. "Several years" of fighting. I guess you DON'T know that. My mistake.



And, that point was, what again?

Make a thread and I'll debate you. I've apologised for hijacking the thread and discontinued doing so, common courtesy would require you to do the same.

The thing that scares me most about the police force is how that in my area,

1. Police have been killed:sniper:
2. That you allways hear police, fire, and abulance and
3. That the government has been taking 2 people a day (to a month) for war

I end with this, the way that the police force is run is odd.

OK. Mean ol' American will take his uncomfortable views and leave the thread to the UK.

Freedom of speech - only as long as you say what the others want to hear...

OK. Mean ol' American will take his uncomfortable views and leave the thread to the UK.

Freedom of speech - only as long as you say what the others want to hear...

freedom of speech no problem. make a thread and I'll see you there. Talk about the UK police (as in the topic of this thread) and we'll continue.

Ah. I see.

So, all men must be castrated because, having a penis, they might rape someone in a fit of insanity.

Right?



Vichy ring any bells? How about June 1940?

Certainly...
And gw bush makes all usian fu** b**s!

Sorry to copy your personal logic.

OK. Mean ol' American will take his uncomfortable views and leave the thread to the UK.

Freedom of speech - only as long as you say what the others want to hear...

dude, quit making texans look bad. He gave you several opportunities to create another thread and discuss what you want to talk about in that thread because of the hijacking. This thread is about british police, not about WWII.

Certainly...
And gw bush makes all usian American fu** b**s!

Sorry to copy your personal logic.

fuck what? (doesn't understand the need ppl feel to censor things)

i got beaten up by four guys right in front of the police for trying to break up a fight between my flatmate and a freind of those that beat me up. the police did nothing to intervene and the guys were sent on their way once they'd finished with me.

on another occaision i got arrested for 'assaulting' a bouncer who was a foot taller and wider than me, all i did was push at him, i actually went backwards rather than affect him in any way. i got arrested, put in a cell and charged, narrowly escaped a court summons.

my respect for the police is not great.

Try complaining to the Independent Police Complaints Commission

On the whole I support our police. The good coppers tend to be hamstrung by paperwork and political correctness, combined with bloody awful leadership, that let the bad ones stand out.

But let's face it - who in their right mind would want to be a copper in the UK in this day and age? I sure wouldn't.

My view is that it is a tragic reflection of the social dislocation New Labour, and Major, have allowed to develop. My response would be to reinstate capital punishment, double mandatory prison sentences, and heavily fine, and tax those with a criminal record.

My view is that it is a tragic reflection of the social dislocation New Labour, and Major, have allowed to develop. My response would be to reinstate capital punishment, double mandatory prison sentences, and heavily fine, and tax those with a criminal record.

but what if they've served their time and get out of prison? Should they still be heavily taxed?

but what if they've served their time and get out of prison? Should they still be heavily taxed?

If they consistently re-offend, or have committed a crime of particular dastardliness, then yes.

My view is that it is a tragic reflection of the social dislocation New Labour, and Major, have allowed to develop. My response would be to reinstate capital punishment, double mandatory prison sentences, and heavily fine, and tax those with a criminal record.

What your talking about is punishment for criminals. It was always my view that the purpose of the penal system was twofold - to puish and rehabilitate. The current system seems to be doing neither.

but what if they've served their time and get out of prison? Should they still be heavily taxed?
You wouldn't get much money out of them if you only took it while they were inside.
My view is that it is a tragic reflection of the social dislocation New Labour, and Major, have allowed to develop. My response would be to reinstate capital punishment, double mandatory prison sentences, and heavily fine, and tax those with a criminal record.
Effect capital punishment has on crime rates: none.

What your talking about is punishment for criminals. It was always my view that the purpose of the penal system was twofold - to puish and rehabilitate. The current system seems to be doing neither.

Granted, the current penal system is somewhat broken down, however, if we disregard social and economic factors, we should consider that prison should evoke more fear amongst potential criminals. Were prison to be genuinely abhorrent, both in conditions and activities, and the sentences long, the fear this would elicit would serve to preclude no small amount of petty criminals. Thus, we are left with, disregarding the more complex issue of juvenile crime, perpetual, and major, criminals, both of whom should be shot.

You wouldn't get much money out of them if you only took it while they were inside.

Effect capital punishment has on crime rates: none.

Statistics?

In any case, I propound capital punishment for more economic reasons than anything else. In order to reduce crime, I maintain fines should be used in tandem with thoroughly nasty prisons.

Granted, the current penal system is somewhat broken down, however, if we disregard social and economic factors, we should consider that prison should evoke more fear amongst potential criminals. Were prison to be genuinely abhorrent, both in conditions and activities, and the sentences long, the fear this would elicit would serve to preclude no small amount of petty criminals. Thus, we are left with, disregarding the more complex issue of juvenile crime, perpetual, and major, criminals, both of whom should be shot.

The concept of punishment doesn't 'frighten' criminals at all, unless there is a realistic chance of being caught. If you can get away with burglary or muggings 999 times out of a 1000, then even a huge prison sentence isn't a deterrence. If, however, you're caught every time, then a small punishment may be sufficient.

Robert Peel recognised the pointlessness of ridiculous punishments for everything 200 years ago. Are you really less advanced than the early Victorians?

Statistics?
Look them up yourself.

In any case, I propound capital punishment for more economic reasons than anything else. In order to reduce crime, I maintain fines should be used in tandem with thoroughly nasty prisons.
'Economic reasons'? Short of shooting the prisoner on the spot as soon as they are convicted, how in the world is it cheaper, after the hugely lengthy appeals processes?

Not with guns, nope. Batons, spray and possibly tasers, these days. Are the Gardai armed?
Only members of the special detectives unit, IMS.
Nope, very few are; only the Armed Response Units.
Ah, more or less the same here.

What bewilders me is the number of police forces we have in the Uk. According to Wiki we have 52 territorial forces, 3 non-territorial forces, 2 organised crime forces, 13 "private" forces and 11 parks forces. If we include the four branhces of the military police, this makes a total of 81 different policing organisations! (And this doesn't include the forces from the Channel Idslands and the Isle of Man). Not one of these forces have juristiction across the entire United Kingdom. As we have seen from some recent cases, most notably the Suffolk prostitute murders and the Soham case co-operation between these forces can be tenuous sometimes. What is needed is a national supervisory force to try and mesh together these various forces and co-ordinate cross territorial investigations and crime prevention.

<HIJACK>
.

Hi, not seen you around for a while.

*Returns to present-wrapping.
</HIJACK>

Tax criminals :D

Yeah, because released offenders are noted for their high levels of disposable income.

Gotta love England, only 1 cop shot?!?! And your police aren't armed! Hehe, it's either your cops are good at dodging, or you criminals have bad aim!Or that vast majority of criminals do not have guns and the majority of those criminals have the sense not to fire the gun.

Infinite Revolution: Police officers are human. Humans or are supposedly held to a higher account, but still human, and hence you get the good with the bad. I have known homophobia, sexism, and racism to occur within the Police forces of the UK. I've also know the Police to be exceedingly tolerant. Me and my sister were on a demonstration. The police are attempting to keep part of parliament square open so that traffic can flow. As they are start pushing the crowd slowly back (there is plenty of space for the crowd to move back to), my sister's friend starts shoving one of the police officers. Now instead of the line of police closing in on her and dragging her out of crowd they ask me and my sister if we can restain our drunken friend and move her away. We do this, the demonstration remains peaceful and a good time is had by all (the police allow themselves to be engaged in conversation, so long as it isn't political), expect perhaps by Tony Blair and his colleges. Now I have a feeling that the matter might have been dealth with slightly differently if the police had been the NYPD instead.

Also, unfortunately for you, the UK Police are constantly told that their safety is paramount. If they do not feel safe engaging in a particular action then they are not required to, and can instead wait for backup.

As for police effectiveness I think ASBOs should be abolished as they give the police too many powers. ASBOs are not limited and the Police can slap an ASBO on pretty much anything they deem to be anti-social behaviour. We are essentially one step away from Judge Dread. And frankly I don't the Police to be either Judge or Jury, let alone executioner.

Ollieland is right. Penal or social reform is desperately needed. The UK does not have the money or the space to keep locking up people at the rate it is, let alone at the rate advocated by others. The government of the day needs to come up with policies that will reduce the likelyhood of first-time and repeat crime happening. We already have the one of the highest prision populations in Europe (if not the highest). Something must change.

Quite frankly giving the police increased powers might be what they require to enhance their effectiveness. A little brutality can go a long way.

Also our prisons ae far to crowded, a problem that should be solved by the return of the death penalty. Why should my taxes pay for a convicted murderer to enjoy a higher quality of life than he may on the outside.

Quite frankly giving the police increased powers might be what they require to enhance their effectiveness. A little brutality can go a long way.

Also our prisons ae far to crowded, a problem that should be solved by the return of the death penalty. Why should my taxes pay for a convicted murderer to enjoy a higher quality of life than he may on the outside.

The taking of a life of a murderer achieves absolutely nothing except sating a sense of revenge. If its revenge your after then keep them locked up for life, remembering their crimes. Killing them for economic reasons is, if I may say so, very cold hearted.

Many people on thois thread have stated that prisons need to be tougher. I wonder how many have visisted a british prison. The vast majority were built in victorian times and are crumbling and dilapidated buildings. Cat A and B prisoners are often locked in their cells for up to 22 hours a day. Well, after all, it is supposed to be a punishment you say. Compare this with many US and European prisons. Most US (and I say most) prisons have sports facilities and large leisure and education facilities, the culture of violence in them being bred from other prisoners, not the authorities. In Europe tere is a siumiliar situation, with prisoners in Denmark and other Scandinavian countries even having a say in the running of the prison. Prison in the UK is tough, but it fails to strike the balance between punishment (undermined by the distortations of the European "Human Rights" issues) and rehabilitation (undermined by lack of funding and personnel).

The taking of a life of a murderer achieves absolutely nothing except sating a sense of revenge. If its revenge your after then keep them locked up for life, remembering their crimes. Killing them for economic reasons is, if I may say so, very cold hearted.

The death penalty does have one positive point no other punishment or method of rehabilitation has:
It prevents them, with absolute certainty, from doing it again.

And yes, it's cold hearted. Is that bad?

The death penalty does have one positive point no other punishment or method of rehabilitation has:
It prevents them, with absolute certainty, from doing it again.

And yes, it's cold hearted. Is that bad?

And if we still had the death penalty, the Birmingham 6 would be dead, as would the Guildford 4, and countless others. As far as I can see, this totally negates any pro death penalty argument/.

The taking of a life of a murderer achieves absolutely nothing except sating a sense of revenge. If its revenge your after then keep them locked up for life, remembering their crimes. Killing them for economic reasons is, if I may say so, very cold hearted.

Although I would agree that keeping them locked up is more of a punishment (I would prefer execution to a very lengthly sentence) I doubt hardened criminals would tear themselves apart over their crimes. I'm not killing them due to a need of revenge, if that were the case I would have them tortured. It is simply cheaper, and I am rather cold hearted, I find it more practical.

Although I would agree that keeping them locked up is more of a punishment (I would prefer execution to a very lengthly sentence) I doubt hardened criminals would tear themselves apart over their crimes. I'm not killing them due to a need of revenge, if that were the case I would have them tortured. It is simply cheaper, and I am rather cold hearted, I find it more practical.

Firstly, the vast majority of murders are crimes of oppurtunism or passion, where is the sense in taking the life of an individual who can be rehabilitated just because it is cheaper?

Secondly, as my previous post tries to point out, for capital punishment to be justified we have to be ABSOLUTELY sure that convictions are watertight. From my two examples that would be 10 people losing their lives unnecassarily. Considering the compensation that would have to be paid out to the families of wroingly executed people your economic argument goes out the window.

Although I would agree that keeping them locked up is more of a punishment (I would prefer execution to a very lengthly sentence) I doubt hardened criminals would tear themselves apart over their crimes. I'm not killing them due to a need of revenge, if that were the case I would have them tortured. It is simply cheaper, and I am rather cold hearted, I find it more practical.Given that wrongful convictions have happened in the past, could you honnestly still advocate the death penalty if you were wrongful convicted of serious crime and sentenced to death?

As an extension of your logic do you think the police force should be privatised, and that you only pay for what you use. After all, if you live in a peaceful area your tax money will be going to protect those in more dangerous areas and proportionately you will get very little back from the government.

And if we still had the death penalty, the Birmingham 6 would be dead, as would the Guildford 4, and countless others. As far as I can see, this totally negates any pro death penalty argument/.

Yes, mistakes would be made. They should, with any vaguely competent legal system, be rare, but they will happen. In the grand scheme of things does it matter, though, as long as when they're discovered the real criminals are found? Of course you'll say yes ;)

Anyway, I agree that if we're going to put people in a box as punishment then something useful should be done with them; just leaving them to rot is pointless. Educate them, give them some work to do, whatever, just something useful. You can't just expect them to magically "get better".

But the problem I have with prison sentences is that, say, giving someone 15 years for murder is like saying "you're only allowed to get caught for murder four times in your life". Giving people x years for theft means you're saying "if you're stealing, make sure you nick at least decent salary * x pounds".
Basically, crime is worth it if the perceived value of committing the crime is greater than the probability of getting caught multiplied by the perceived negative value of the punishment for the crime.

Firstly, the vast majority of murders are crimes of oppurtunism or passion, where is the sense in taking the life of an individual who can be rehabilitated just because it is cheaper?

In the case of a crime that's incredibly unlikely to be repeated, why waste money on punishment or rehabilitation? Why not just let them go?

Yes, mistakes would be made. They should, with any vaguely competent legal system, be rare, but they will happen. In the grand scheme of things does it matter, though, as long as when they're discovered the real criminals are found? Of course you'll say yes ;)

Anyway, I agree that if we're going to put people in a box as punishment then something useful should be done with them; just leaving them to rot is pointless. Educate them, give them some work to do, whatever, just something useful. You can't just expect them to magically "get better".

But the problem I have with prison sentences is that, say, giving someone 15 years for murder is like saying "you're only allowed to get caught for murder four times in your life". Giving people x years for theft means you're saying "if you're stealing, make sure you nick at least decent salary * x pounds".
Basically, crime is worth it if the perceived value of committing the crime is greater than the probability of getting caught multiplied by the perceived negative value of the punishment for the crime.

The first part, you knew I would say yes;) . I value human life above all, that is my personal ethics. If it costs us money to save those ten innocent lives, however much it has cost us over the past 20 or 30 years, then yes, in my view, it was worth it. You'll disagree ;) , but I don't think we'll come to a compromise on that issue.

The second part, about prison sentances, I partially agree with you. I can see the logic in what ypur saying, but what your saying comes from a (hopefully) logical and intellignet person. These are nor characteristics share by most criminals.

Firstly, the vast majority of murders are crimes of oppurtunism or passion, where is the sense in taking the life of an individual who can be rehabilitated just because it is cheaper?

Secondly, as my previous post tries to point out, for capital punishment to be justified we have to be ABSOLUTELY sure that convictions are watertight. From my two examples that would be 10 people losing their lives unnecassarily. Considering the compensation that would have to be paid out to the families of wroingly executed people your economic argument goes out the window.

Execution is a form of rehabilitation, by killing them in a relatively quick, relatively painless manner they do not suffer and the state is helping them to ensure that they will never commit a crime again. As for the economic argument, consider:
a) That this person will need to be fed, clothed and cared for to an appallingly high degree of comfort by the state for 20+ years
b) The state could quite easily refuse payment if it wishes or simply not acknowledge the validity of the post execution defence.
Its a shame that our government has to recognise these inconvinient complaints at all.

In the case of a crime that's incredibly unlikely to be repeated, why waste money on punishment or rehabilitation? Why not just let them go?

Because they need to be seen by the victims and victim's family (and society in general) to be punished and / or rehabilitated.

Execution is a form of rehabilitation, by killing them in a relatively quick, relatively painless manner they do not suffer and the state is helping them to ensure that they will never commit a crime again. As for the economic argument, consider:
a) That this person will need to be fed, clothed and cared for to an appallingly high degree of comfort by the state for 20+ years
b) The state could quite easily refuse payment if it wishes or simply not acknowledge the validity of the post execution defence.
Its a shame that our government has to recognise these inconvinient complaints at all.

See my posts about the Birmingham 6 and Guilford 4.

See my posts about the Birmingham 6 and Guilford 4.

I have. Saying it negates the argument does not make it so.

I have. Saying it negates the argument does not make it so.

Well yes it does. You can't justify executing innocent people. Can you?

Well yes it does. You can't justify executing innocent people. Can you?

Yes you can actually.

Yes you can actually.

I'm itching to hear this, justify taking ten innocent lives. The lives of people who have commited no crimes and done no wrongs, yet they are justified in losing their lives. I dare you. I double dare you.

Yes, mistakes would be made. They should, with any vaguely competent legal system, be rare, but they will happen. In the grand scheme of things does it matter, though, as long as when they're discovered the real criminals are found? Of course you'll say yes ;)

Anyway, I agree that if we're going to put people in a box as punishment then something useful should be done with them; just leaving them to rot is pointless. Educate them, give them some work to do, whatever, just something useful. You can't just expect them to magically "get better".

But the problem I have with prison sentences is that, say, giving someone 15 years for murder is like saying "you're only allowed to get caught for murder four times in your life". Giving people x years for theft means you're saying "if you're stealing, make sure you nick at least decent salary * x pounds".
Basically, crime is worth it if the perceived value of committing the crime is greater than the probability of getting caught multiplied by the perceived negative value of the punishment for the crime.


So lets have the death penalty for all crimes, that's the logical extension of your argument. It'll prevent reoffending and is apparently a form of "rehabilitation":rolleyes:

I'm itching to hear this, justify taking ten innocent lives. The lives of people who have commited no crimes and done no wrongs, yet they are justified in losing their lives. I dare you. I double dare you.

Just to get the rules correct, I could devise a hypothetical situation for the puposes of the justification, correct?

Just to get the rules correct, I could devise a hypothetical situation for the puposes of the justification, correct?

No, you need to explain how, if we still had the death penalty in the UK, when these 10 people were wrongly convicted of murder, how their execution would be justified.

The first part, you knew I would say yes;) . I value human life above all, that is my personal ethics. If it costs us money to save those ten innocent lives, however much it has cost us over the past 20 or 30 years, then yes, in my view, it was worth it. You'll disagree ;) , but I don't think we'll come to a compromise on that issue.

Most likely the ten innocent people would agree with you ;)
I don't think there's a Right Answer to the problem. You can prevent re-offending and kill innocents, you can lock them up and then suffer from re-offending, so on and so forth.
Even if you could magically tell with absolute certainty if you'd got the right person, then cast a spell on them to magically prevent them re-offending, justice wouldn't be seen to be done if you just let them go. With property crimes it's easy for the criminal to (literally) pay for their wrongdoing, but how do you make reparations for a rape or murder?

You just can't win.

And Forsakia: Yes, that is the logical conclusion of my argument. Although I reckon that calling it "rehabilitation" would be stretching the definition.

No, you need to explain how, if we still had the death penalty in the UK, when these 10 people were wrongly convicted of murder, how their execution would be justified.

They were convicted of murder and the court determined that the appropriate sentence was death. Their execution was simply the culmination of the legal process, the legal process that all citizens can be made subject to. The decision is the justification and the evidence presented at the time the cause of the decision. It may not have been fair, their defence may have been mishandled, but the fact that thelegal process produced this outcome is the justification at the time.

Most likely the ten innocent people would agree with you ;)
I don't think there's a Right Answer to the problem. You can prevent re-offending and kill innocents, you can lock them up and then suffer from re-offending, so on and so forth.
Even if you could magically tell with absolute certainty if you'd got the right person, then cast a spell on them to magically prevent them re-offending, justice wouldn't be seen to be done if you just let them go. With property crimes it's easy for the criminal to (literally) pay for their wrongdoing, but how do you make reparations for a rape or murder?

You just can't win.

And Forsakia: Yes, that is the logical conclusion of my argument. Although I reckon that calling it "rehabilitation" would be stretching the definition.

Thers no right or wrong answewr, thats true, but we can lean in either direction. The problem this government faces wiith penal reform, as it does with most types of reform, is that they tend to think with pound signs rather than what is actually best for the individual concened or society at large.

They were convicted of murder and the court determined that the appropriate sentence was death. Their execution was simply the culmination of the legal process, the legal process that all citizens can be made subject to. The decision is the justification and the evidence presented at the time the cause of the decision. It may not have been fair, their defence may have been mishandled, but the fact that thelegal process produced this outcome is the justification at the time.

I take it you are not British or you would know better. They were convicted on FAULTY forensic evidence and FORCED confessions. Real justification. Try again.

Thers no right or wrong answewr, thats true, but we can lean in either direction. The problem this government faces wiith penal reform, as it does with most types of reform, is that they tend to think with pound signs rather than what is actually best for the individual concened or society at large.

Is that always a bad thing. Stability in the economy often causes a degree stability in the political and social affairs. Besides a stable, growing economy is one of the few things Labour can boast about.

Is that always a bad thing. Stability in the economy often causes a degree stability in the political and social affairs. Besides a stable, growing economy is one of the few things Labour can boast about.

If a stable economy a large amount of people live in poverty then yes it is a bad thing. Thatcher kept inflation low by refusing to help 4 million unemployed people, but the economy was kept stable. Good or bad?

I take it you are not British or you would know better. They were convicted on FAULTY forensic evidence and FORCED confessions. Real justification. Try again.

Actually I am British (English) and I think we disagree on what actually constitutes justification. You enjoy both hindsight and a rather individualist in your outlook, I put a larger emphasis on the fact that they were convicted (not because that means they are guilty), but becuase they were being processed by the system, which produced an outcome.

Besides, do you think that this occurs with every case, or that execution on this basis is any worse than long-term imprisonment.

(Are you always pro-life?)

If a stable economy a large amount of people live in poverty then yes it is a bad thing. Thatcher kept inflation low by refusing to help 4 million unemployed people, but the economy was kept stable. Good or bad?

Unemployment is a crucial part of any economy. Like you said, it keeps inflation low, the only problem is that nowadays the state is expected to pay the unemployed generous wages.

(Are you always pro-life?)

Having been a soldier and taken lives in the past, yes, I am always pro life. This is a belief of mine that I make no apolgies for. Like most beliefs it can be difficult to logically explain ;) but it it something I will stick to.

Unemployment is a crucial part of any economy. Like you said, it keeps inflation low, the only problem is that nowadays the state is expected to pay the unemployed generous wages.

And people suffer from unemployment. like i have stated before any issue must be about striking the right balance, something which wasn't done in the example I gave.

Having been a soldier and taken lives in the past, yes, I am always pro life. This is a belief of mine that I make no apolgies for. Like most beliefs it can be difficult to logically explain ;) but it it something I will stick to.

So you recognise no reason for taking life?
Surely serving in the military should have taught you that moral compromises must be made?

So you recognise no reason for taking life?
Surely serving in the military should have taught you that moral compromises must be made?

Not at all. The only reason for taking life is defence of your own life or the defence of anothers life. Capital punishment achieves neither of those that life imprisonment couldn't achive for a convicted killer.

Not at all. The only reason for taking life is defence of your own life or the defence of anothers life. Capital punishment achieves neither of those that life imprisonment couldn't achive for a convicted killer.

So you do acknowledge that there are situations in which it is appropriate to kill. As for capital punishment, it does two things that life imprisonment does not. It ensures that the criminal will never be released to reoffend and is a damnsight cheaper.

So you do acknowledge that there are situations in which it is appropriate to kill. As for capital punishment, it does two things that life imprisonment does not. It ensures that the criminal will never be released to reoffend and is a damnsight cheaper.

Life imprisonment (REAL life imprisonment) ensures the exact same thing. As for being cheaper, remove the pound signd from your eyes and start looking at what is better for society in general.

Life imprisonment (REAL life imprisonment) ensures the exact same thing. As for being cheaper, remove the pound signd from your eyes and start looking at what is better for society in general.

You would be hard pushed to get someone sentenced to complete life imprisonment, quite frankly if faced with that I would consider death a mercy.
As for considering the improvement of society, if you are never releasing the person then what role do they play in improving the society whereas the saved tax money can be invested in public services, where it can be useful to people vaguely deserving.

The death penalty does have one positive point no other punishment or method of rehabilitation has:
It prevents them, with absolute certainty, from doing it again.

Only if you know, with absolute certainty, that they were the ones who did it... need I go on?

They were convicted of murder and the court determined that the appropriate sentence was death. Their execution was simply the culmination of the legal process, the legal process that all citizens can be made subject to. The decision is the justification and the evidence presented at the time the cause of the decision. It may not have been fair, their defence may have been mishandled, but the fact that thelegal process produced this outcome is the justification at the time.

In other words 'justice isn't fair, and need not strive to be so'. Makes rather a mockery of the whole thing then, no?

You would be hard pushed to get someone sentenced to complete life imprisonment, quite frankly if faced with that I would consider death a mercy.

Michael Stone?

I am rather proud of my ignorance of firearms actually........

6 years Royal Navy as a steward, 5 years French Foreign Legion in 2nd Parachute regiment
Certainly not, we were elite soldiers and treated as such. Our loyalty was not to France or our own nations, it was to the Legion itself.


Oops. Care to explain how you, having served as an elite soldier in the 2ème REP, are so ignorant of firearms?

In other words 'justice isn't fair, and need not strive to be so'. Makes rather a mockery of the whole thing then, no?

Nothing is perfect, justice will will always make mistakes. The difference here is how much emphasis you and I place on the lives of the individuals. The money saved and the removal of undesirable elements from society would balance against the deaths of those who were not guilty. Besides, people will only care if somebody makes a big fuss afterwards, if the government doesn't and ignores those who do then people should quickly get the hint and move on.

Nothing is perfect, justice will will always make mistakes. The difference here is how much emphasis you and I place on the lives of the individuals. The money saved and the removal of undesirable elements from society would balance against the deaths of those who were not guilty. Besides, people will only care if somebody makes a big fuss afterwards, if the government doesn't and ignores those who do then people should quickly get the hint and move on.

So, in your view, the justice system has nothing to do with justice, and everything to do with social control, yes?

So, in your view, the justice system has nothing to do with justice, and everything to do with social control, yes?

The point of a governed society is to exercise social (and economic) control over its people to the degree it sees fit, thereby keeping the society intact and moving forward.

What about the police (USA)?

Bigger guns?

The point of a governed society is to exercise social (and economic) control over its people to the degree it sees fit, thereby keeping the society intact and moving forward.

And your basis for this claim?

And your basis for this claim?

You remove the government, you remove all law, all regulation and all order, and you'll find it replaced by either new, smaller scale government with people still trying to control others, but with a smaller area of influence. Or you get anarchy, because without society, which keeps people in line, any cohesion falls apart and you are left with nothing but chaos.
Society controls people, because uncontrolled people are far worse.

Oops. Care to explain how you, having served as an elite soldier in the 2ème REP, are so ignorant of firearms?

We only trained on the FAMAS G1 and it was ten years ago...........