Here we go (aka UK riots thread)

[Lofthouse Lower]

Not man enough to answer the question then. Or do you need W-t-W to hold your hand. I can defend Liberal Fascism as it is being recognised as a phenomenon at last. Whether you fit the bill or not only you can say or demonstate.

But you need to reply to my question. As I said, my job can be damaged by suggestions like that. It's not like the main stress of my day is whether the veg is properly cooked or not.

So, am I, or am I not ... In your view, a racist. If you feel so, as we only know each other from here, do point out where you have, even the faintest indication of that from here.

You can, as I said, simly withdraw the implication.

You cannot however leave it said & then dash for cover.

You're absolutely right. The main stress of my day doesn't involve getting upset with the internet either. But rest assured, I am glad to hear how important you are.

Just goes to show that supposed intellect proves f*ck all. Liberal Fascism is recognised by people like Melanie Phillips. Seems about your level. And your source material.

I had to look up Melanie Phillips. Seems a sound enough woman though.

Indeed, you prove my point ; “agree with my position or you are a bad person” and I will hurl unfounded and damaging accusations at you.”

It was not I, by the way, who raised qualifications. I merely responded.

Fascism is too often seen as a case of extreme ‘right wing’ views, a sort of counterpoint to communism. That is in fact a description of a symptom, not of the actual disease. Fascism is when the state abuses its power, usually via populism, and ensures that debate, disagreement or and contrary view is squashed. So, in fact, Communist Governments actually follow fascist processes in their steps to prevent debate or opposition.

That practice converts from being unreasonable to fascism when it develops into “… and as you are a bad person I will ensure you are ostracised, your views are made unacceptable and it will affect your social standing and employability”.

It is ‘Liberal’ Fascism when this is done on the basis of liberal values being forced upon people. This has been happening steadily over the past 15 years, probably more. Imagine a teacher now who disagrees with the Green agenda. Imagine a BBC journalist who questions whether the Libyan exploits were fair & reasonable against a sovereign Govt. We see Michael MacIntyre semi ostracised coz he’s not ‘right-on’ enough. Imagine any public figure saying that Unions are negative rather than positive institutions. David Starkey last week espoused some views on the riots which many people disagreed with. Instead of any debate the immediate view was that his career was over and he should never be allowed to air those views again ! Disagree with him, by all means. But at least allow the discussion.

A vacuum results where fear prevents proper discussion and the void is filled by those pushing forward the accepted agenda. Have you ever wondered how is it that BNP/EDL/Nat Front views get people dismissed &/or vilified … yet communist views are seen as part of the mainstream ? It is due to this process. I have no problem in the cutting off, I just think it should be even handed.

That is what has happened over the past 15 years. The trend of the past Labour Govts., now admitted by Ed Milliband, Jack Straw et al, was to stifle debate and hence an under-current of suppressed views developed. To simply mention certain things has become unacceptable and was a career killer.

At last we have Chris Patten, now in charge at the BBC stating that the BBC policies, enacted by a largely left-leaning Labour supporting, often Labour appointed senior managers ensured positions were awarded contingent on people having particular views. So no REAL debate is permitted about race, multi-culturalism, discrimination, environmental issues, unionisation, Human Rights laws, Comprehensive education, social issues …. .

This can be extreme and quite open, it can also be done less obviously. To stop debate and to curtail careers of those who attempt to have it is, indeed, fascistic.

This allows you to carelessly fling forward accusations of people being racist for simply raising a question. It also allows you to believe that merely making that statement wins the argument. It appears to allow you to believe you can hurl that suggestion forward at people who plainly are not and without the faintest evidence … yet feel free to avoid retracting it.

I am happy to discuss toasting machines with you. Your expertise is probably high there. However, I am utterly, utterly appalled that you fling that accusation at me and are lacking the moral fibre to say “OK, maybe that was out of order”.
Anyway, back to the day job. I doubt we'll ever agree on anything. So let's not bother trying.

[Lord Kangana]

Not lacking in Fruit n' Fibre though, so that should keep the customers happy when they're failing to use a toaster.

And I'll keep my eyes on the news for the next communist-inspired race hate meeting now you've pointed out the similarities.

[William the White]

At last we have Chris Patten, now in charge at the BBC stating that the BBC policies, enacted by a largely left-leaning Labour supporting, often Labour appointed senior managers ensured positions were awarded contingent on people having particular views. So no REAL debate is permitted about race, multi-culturalism, discrimination, environmental issues, unionisation, Human Rights laws, Comprehensive education, social issues ….

That'll be the former chairman of the Conservative Party you're talking about, I expect?

Is he your evidence for a new objectivity reigning in the BBC?

[bobo the clown]

At last we have Chris Patten, now in charge at the BBC stating that the BBC policies, enacted by a largely left-leaning Labour supporting, often Labour appointed senior managers ensured positions were awarded contingent on people having particular views. So no REAL debate is permitted about race, multi-culturalism, discrimination, environmental issues, unionisation, Human Rights laws, Comprehensive education, social issues ….

That'll be the former chairman of the Conservative Party you're talking about, I expect?

Is he your evidence for a new objectivity reigning in the BBC?

Yep, that'll be the one.

[William the White]

At last we have Chris Patten, now in charge at the BBC stating that the BBC policies, enacted by a largely left-leaning Labour supporting, often Labour appointed senior managers ensured positions were awarded contingent on people having particular views. So no REAL debate is permitted about race, multi-culturalism, discrimination, environmental issues, unionisation, Human Rights laws, Comprehensive education, social issues ….

That'll be the former chairman of the Conservative Party you're talking about, I expect?

Is he your evidence for a new objectivity reigning in the BBC?

Yep, that'll be the one.

[Prufrock]

Between 1989 and 1993/4 prison pops cut from circa 50,000 to 45,000. Crime rate went from 4m per annum to around 5.6m

1993-1998 prison population increases to 60,000+ crime rate drops to 4.6m

1998-2001 prison pop flattens out, crime starts to increase again peaks at 6m in 2004.

Prison population increases again to 85,000 in 2009 crime rate drops to 4.7m

Being strong advocates that prison doesn't "work", I'm sure you could have told us this.

It doesn't take any study of any great length or value to show that if the main perpetrators of crime aren't actually free, then the crime rate will fall.

In the US, the prision population has risen steadily every year since 1989 when it was about 1.1m prisoners. Crime was running at around 14-15m recorded crimes per annum - 2009 prison population 2.4m 0 recorded crimes 11m

I have no idea how this proves that locking people up lowers crime? 25,000 more people in jail in 2009 that 98, yet more crime. In 93 when crime is prison population was low, crime was a lot higher than 1989. By 98, prison population was well above 89 levels, yet despite decreasing from 93 levels, crime was far higher than 89. This study to me seems to indicate that prison only works as long as you don't let folk out again, in which the costs are huge.

You mentioned you thought someone would bring cost into it, and I agree to a point that cost really isn't the point. However, if it is cheaper to lock people up (indefinitely, or crime gets worse it seems) than it is to clear up the damage, which it isn't, then it is surely cheaper to sort out the root problems. That is if we are accepting there are serious root problems, and not taking for granted the crass assumption of so many of the law-respecting (as long as it isn't speeding, or parking, or minor drink driving, or tax evasion, or other 'victimless crimes') right wing, that they are somehow better than the people involved in these incidents.

[Worthy4England]

Between 1989 and 1993/4 prison pops cut from circa 50,000 to 45,000. Crime rate went from 4m per annum to around 5.6m

1993-1998 prison population increases to 60,000+ crime rate drops to 4.6m

1998-2001 prison pop flattens out, crime starts to increase again peaks at 6m in 2004.

Prison population increases again to 85,000 in 2009 crime rate drops to 4.7m

Being strong advocates that prison doesn't "work", I'm sure you could have told us this.

It doesn't take any study of any great length or value to show that if the main perpetrators of crime aren't actually free, then the crime rate will fall.

In the US, the prision population has risen steadily every year since 1989 when it was about 1.1m prisoners. Crime was running at around 14-15m recorded crimes per annum - 2009 prison population 2.4m 0 recorded crimes 11m

I have no idea how this proves that locking people up lowers crime? 25,000 more people in jail in 2009 that 98, yet more crime. In 93 when crime is prison population was low, crime was a lot higher than 1989. By 98, prison population was well above 89 levels, yet despite decreasing from 93 levels, crime was far higher than 89. This study to me seems to indicate that prison only works as long as you don't let folk out again, in which the costs are huge.

You mentioned you thought someone would bring cost into it, and I agree to a point that cost really isn't the point. However, if it is cheaper to lock people up (indefinitely, or crime gets worse it seems) than it is to clear up the damage, which it isn't, then it is surely cheaper to sort out the root problems. That is if we are accepting there are serious root problems, and not taking for granted the crass assumption of so many of the law-respecting (as long as it isn't speeding, or parking, or minor drink driving, or tax evasion, or other 'victimless crimes') right wing, that they are somehow better than the people involved in these incidents.

Careful, Pru, don't think I said anything was proof positive here, I said there was a correlation between lowering prison populations and higher recorded crime figures and raising prision populations with lower recorded crime figures.

The drop in recorded crime when the prision population rose from 60k to 85k was 1.3m (larger than the drop when it rose from 45k to 60k - 1.2m), but I'm sure it's not a precise science. Just increasing prision population by arresting people who commit one crime, once, would have no/little discernable effect, increasing it by targeting repeat offenders who appear before the bench asking for 240 other cases to be taken into consideration, probably helps.

Similarly, when the prision population was reduced by 10% (a government policy decision) there is a correlating rise at the same time.

I disagree with the notion that it costs more to lock people up than it does to "clear up the damage", do you have anything to support that assertion to counter the Home Office view that the cost of crime is £60 Bn per annum? A "for example" - someone steals my telly. I have to pay the replacement or insurance excess, the police have to turn up, they have to take fingerprints and investigate, they may make one or more arrests and take it through court etc. etc. That soon mounts up to a figure probably not unadjacent to how much it costs to keep some fecker locked up for 6 months (£12k or so?). They do that every 6 months once, and their cost of incarceration are quickly offest.

And certainly don't agree that it's cheaper to sort out the root problems. If that were so, we wouldn't have re-offence rates of 80%. Sorting out the root problems demonstrably doesn't work very well short term, by that measure.

Having someone who commits multiple crimes habitually, behind bars, clearly stops them commiting crimes within the general populace.

I think speeding is a victimless crime. It only becomes "victimful" when you hit some fecker, in which case the crime is no longer speeding.

[Hoboh]

Just throw the bloody keys away and have done with it minister!

[Worthy4England]

Just throw the bloody keys away and have done with it minister!

I already did, I'm just pretending to appease the masses with the notion that I'm paying attention to anything they say.

[Prufrock]

Between 1989 and 1993/4 prison pops cut from circa 50,000 to 45,000. Crime rate went from 4m per annum to around 5.6m

1993-1998 prison population increases to 60,000+ crime rate drops to 4.6m

1998-2001 prison pop flattens out, crime starts to increase again peaks at 6m in 2004.

Prison population increases again to 85,000 in 2009 crime rate drops to 4.7m

Being strong advocates that prison doesn't "work", I'm sure you could have told us this.

It doesn't take any study of any great length or value to show that if the main perpetrators of crime aren't actually free, then the crime rate will fall.

In the US, the prision population has risen steadily every year since 1989 when it was about 1.1m prisoners. Crime was running at around 14-15m recorded crimes per annum - 2009 prison population 2.4m 0 recorded crimes 11m

I have no idea how this proves that locking people up lowers crime? 25,000 more people in jail in 2009 that 98, yet more crime. In 93 when crime is prison population was low, crime was a lot higher than 1989. By 98, prison population was well above 89 levels, yet despite decreasing from 93 levels, crime was far higher than 89. This study to me seems to indicate that prison only works as long as you don't let folk out again, in which the costs are huge.

You mentioned you thought someone would bring cost into it, and I agree to a point that cost really isn't the point. However, if it is cheaper to lock people up (indefinitely, or crime gets worse it seems) than it is to clear up the damage, which it isn't, then it is surely cheaper to sort out the root problems. That is if we are accepting there are serious root problems, and not taking for granted the crass assumption of so many of the law-respecting (as long as it isn't speeding, or parking, or minor drink driving, or tax evasion, or other 'victimless crimes') right wing, that they are somehow better than the people involved in these incidents.

Careful, Pru, don't think I said anything was proof positive here, I said there was a correlation between lowering prison populations and higher recorded crime figures and raising prision populations with lower recorded crime figures.

The drop in recorded crime when the prision population rose from 60k to 85k was 1.3m (larger than the drop when it rose from 45k to 60k - 1.2m), but I'm sure it's not a precise science. Just increasing prision population by arresting people who commit one crime, once, would have no/little discernable effect, increasing it by targeting repeat offenders who appear before the bench asking for 240 other cases to be taken into consideration, probably helps.

Similarly, when the prision population was reduced by 10% (a government policy decision) there is a correlating rise at the same time.

I disagree with the notion that it costs more to lock people up than it does to "clear up the damage", do you have anything to support that assertion to counter the Home Office view that the cost of crime is £60 Bn per annum? A "for example" - someone steals my telly. I have to pay the replacement or insurance excess, the police have to turn up, they have to take fingerprints and investigate, they may make one or more arrests and take it through court etc. etc. That soon mounts up to a figure probably not unadjacent to how much it costs to keep some fecker locked up for 6 months (£12k or so?). They do that every 6 months once, and their cost of incarceration are quickly offest.

And certainly don't agree that it's cheaper to sort out the root problems. If that were so, we wouldn't have re-offence rates of 80%. Sorting out the root problems demonstrably doesn't work very well short term, by that measure.

Having someone who commits multiple crimes habitually, behind bars, clearly stops them commiting crimes within the general populace.

I think speeding is a victimless crime. It only becomes "victimful" when you hit some fecker, in which case the crime is no longer speeding.

I'm not sure if it were you, but folk on this thread have definitely gone for the 'lock 'em all up, that'll fix it' line of thinking. My point on cost is that in order to maintain those levels of low crime, you have to keep them locked up. Those figures indicate to my untrained eye that locking people up increases crime, but letting them out again raises it to higher levels than we started with, supporting the theory of prison as a criminal training ground. Now to maintain those low figures you have to keep them permanently locked up, which would increase pennies massively, mainly coz there ain't enough room to start with. That means tax hikes, especially in the current climate, and even if you can make that justifiable, it certainly isn't electable (which doesn't make it wrong, just 'not gonna happen).

I would also contend that if there is an 80% re-offending rate, then that only proves there is no stopping of root causes, not that stopping root causes doesn't work. To me it seems patently obvious there needs serious work done there. My point about crass right wing attitudes was a paradoxical point to Bobo's liberal fascism rant. The idea that these scrotes have our same values but set them aside for personal gain is false. They don't have the values. There are deep seated societal causes. We are malleable according to our environment, and they haven't been taught to follow what we consider societal norms (it isn't that clear cut. See the number of people who illegally download, but wouldn't shoplift; morally they are identical). They are products of a fecked up society.

And the speeding point is particularly disingenuous. Stabbing is a crime (pick an assault-y charge). If someone does a stab murder, stabbing killed them.

[Worthy4England]

Between 1989 and 1993/4 prison pops cut from circa 50,000 to 45,000. Crime rate went from 4m per annum to around 5.6m

1993-1998 prison population increases to 60,000+ crime rate drops to 4.6m

1998-2001 prison pop flattens out, crime starts to increase again peaks at 6m in 2004.

Prison population increases again to 85,000 in 2009 crime rate drops to 4.7m

Being strong advocates that prison doesn't "work", I'm sure you could have told us this.

It doesn't take any study of any great length or value to show that if the main perpetrators of crime aren't actually free, then the crime rate will fall.

In the US, the prision population has risen steadily every year since 1989 when it was about 1.1m prisoners. Crime was running at around 14-15m recorded crimes per annum - 2009 prison population 2.4m 0 recorded crimes 11m

I have no idea how this proves that locking people up lowers crime? 25,000 more people in jail in 2009 that 98, yet more crime. In 93 when crime is prison population was low, crime was a lot higher than 1989. By 98, prison population was well above 89 levels, yet despite decreasing from 93 levels, crime was far higher than 89. This study to me seems to indicate that prison only works as long as you don't let folk out again, in which the costs are huge.

You mentioned you thought someone would bring cost into it, and I agree to a point that cost really isn't the point. However, if it is cheaper to lock people up (indefinitely, or crime gets worse it seems) than it is to clear up the damage, which it isn't, then it is surely cheaper to sort out the root problems. That is if we are accepting there are serious root problems, and not taking for granted the crass assumption of so many of the law-respecting (as long as it isn't speeding, or parking, or minor drink driving, or tax evasion, or other 'victimless crimes') right wing, that they are somehow better than the people involved in these incidents.

Careful, Pru, don't think I said anything was proof positive here, I said there was a correlation between lowering prison populations and higher recorded crime figures and raising prision populations with lower recorded crime figures.

The drop in recorded crime when the prision population rose from 60k to 85k was 1.3m (larger than the drop when it rose from 45k to 60k - 1.2m), but I'm sure it's not a precise science. Just increasing prision population by arresting people who commit one crime, once, would have no/little discernable effect, increasing it by targeting repeat offenders who appear before the bench asking for 240 other cases to be taken into consideration, probably helps.

Similarly, when the prision population was reduced by 10% (a government policy decision) there is a correlating rise at the same time.

I disagree with the notion that it costs more to lock people up than it does to "clear up the damage", do you have anything to support that assertion to counter the Home Office view that the cost of crime is £60 Bn per annum? A "for example" - someone steals my telly. I have to pay the replacement or insurance excess, the police have to turn up, they have to take fingerprints and investigate, they may make one or more arrests and take it through court etc. etc. That soon mounts up to a figure probably not unadjacent to how much it costs to keep some fecker locked up for 6 months (£12k or so?). They do that every 6 months once, and their cost of incarceration are quickly offest.

And certainly don't agree that it's cheaper to sort out the root problems. If that were so, we wouldn't have re-offence rates of 80%. Sorting out the root problems demonstrably doesn't work very well short term, by that measure.

Having someone who commits multiple crimes habitually, behind bars, clearly stops them commiting crimes within the general populace.

I think speeding is a victimless crime. It only becomes "victimful" when you hit some fecker, in which case the crime is no longer speeding.

I'm not sure if it were you, but folk on this thread have definitely gone for the 'lock 'em all up, that'll fix it' line of thinking. My point on cost is that in order to maintain those levels of low crime, you have to keep them locked up. Those figures indicate to my untrained eye that locking people up increases crime, but letting them out again raises it to higher levels than we started with, supporting the theory of prison as a criminal training ground. Now to maintain those low figures you have to keep them permanently locked up, which would increase pennies massively, mainly coz there ain't enough room to start with. That means tax hikes, especially in the current climate, and even if you can make that justifiable, it certainly isn't electable (which doesn't make it wrong, just 'not gonna happen).

I would also contend that if there is an 80% re-offending rate, then that only proves there is no stopping of root causes, not that stopping root causes doesn't work. To me it seems patently obvious there needs serious work done there. My point about crass right wing attitudes was a paradoxical point to Bobo's liberal fascism rant. The idea that these scrotes have our same values but set them aside for personal gain is false. They don't have the values. There are deep seated societal causes. We are malleable according to our environment, and they haven't been taught to follow what we consider societal norms (it isn't that clear cut. See the number of people who illegally download, but wouldn't shoplift; morally they are identical). They are products of a fecked up society.

And the speeding point is particularly disingenuous. Stabbing is a crime (pick an assault-y charge). If someone does a stab murder, stabbing killed them.

No, what some folk were saying was locking them up would stop them committing crime within the outside community (not "fix it" in a holistic sense).

The picture for the US don't seem to indicate that the criminal training ground idea has much creedence, but that could be down to longer sentences for the same offences as the UK for example.



Building more prison places doesn't mean tax hikes necessarily, you could choose to redistribute the existing budgets - something else would have to be cut to enable this of course. Maybe PCSO's could be reduced some? Also, I'm not suggesting that we do anything fair here. I'm not suggesting that we lock up shoplifters for 2 years minimum for a first offence. Target, entirely unfairly, those people that ask for 240 other crimes to be taken into consideration, time and time again. Increase dramatically sentences for multiple and repeat offences.

My point about speeding as victimless wasn't disingenuous. Stabbing someone has a victim, if that leads to murder because they die, then it still had a victim in the first place. Who is the victim on speeding? Unless it becomes a different offence (like dangerous or reckless driving?). Illegal downloads clearly have a victim (the copyright owner)

[Lord Kangana]

Lock everyone up.

Then there'll be zero percent crime on our streets.

Big FACT with cherry and sprinkle's on top. Might even throw some M&Ms in aswell if you're lucky.

And speeding as a victimless crime? So you choose whether you hit someone whilst speeding do you?

[Worthy4England]

And speeding as a victimless crime? So you choose whether you hit someone whilst speeding do you?

If you hit someone whilst speeding, then the crime is different. Causing death by dangerous driving or somesuch.

I never contended that hitting someone was victimless, just that if you do, it's a different crime.

As such, speeding is a victimless crime.

[Lofthouse Lower]

Unless you count the impact of the extra petrol needed as you hit those high speeds to be effectively victimless

[Worthy4England]

Unless you count the impact of the extra petrol needed as you hit those high speeds to be effectively victimless

Yes in a legal sense, otherwise we'd have to ban motor racing etc.

[Hoboh]

Lock everyone up.

Then there'll be zero percent crime on our streets.

Big FACT with cherry and sprinkle's on top. Might even throw some M&Ms in aswell if you're lucky.And speeding as a victimless crime? So you choose whether you hit someone whilst speeding do you?

I'm sure I can find a job for you..........................................

[Hoboh]

Unless you count the impact of the extra petrol needed as you hit those high speeds to be effectively victimless

And whats wrong with a couple of dustbin carbs chucking motion lotion into besses heart?????
You'll be lunchng with BWFCI next!!

[Lord Kangana]

And speeding as a victimless crime? So you choose whether you hit someone whilst speeding do you?

If you hit someone whilst speeding, then the crime is different. Causing death by dangerous driving or somesuch.

I never contended that hitting someone was victimless, just that if you do, it's a different crime.

As such, speeding is a victimless crime.

So, for the sake of argument, and hypothetically speaking, if I walked down to Newport street with my AK47 and started brap brapping, as long as the bullets didn't connect with any sentient being or property, no offence was committed?

[Worthy4England]

And speeding as a victimless crime? So you choose whether you hit someone whilst speeding do you?

If you hit someone whilst speeding, then the crime is different. Causing death by dangerous driving or somesuch.

I never contended that hitting someone was victimless, just that if you do, it's a different crime.

As such, speeding is a victimless crime.

So, for the sake of argument, and hypothetically speaking, if I walked down to Newport street with my AK47 and started brap brapping, as long as the bullets didn't connect with any sentient being or property, no offence was committed?

I didn't say speeding wasn't an offence, I said it was victimless.

[Lord Kangana]

Who's the victim in my scenario?