11 replies to this topic

[DodgyPhil]

Some of you may/or may not know of Britain's current situation. Like many other European countries we have been moving more and more towards a socialist state. Our policies have become more and more liberal, to the point where criminality is rewarded and those who live by the law suffer.
Our political parties don't seem to care either?
-The conservatives, once a hard-line party determined to decrease taxes and stamp out crime, has become limp-wristed and adopted 'green' policies to fit in.
-Labour, once the working man's party, has been in power for over 10 years and has destroyed the working-class (and our country).
-The only party not to change much is the Liberal-democrats: they were also a joke.
-The BNP (British National Party) are quite a troubling force. They plan to practically cease immigration and kick-out swathes of legal immigrants from the country. They also want to introduce corporal punishment for petty-crime. While they're the only party to come close to tackling issues I care about, they're far far too extreme.
-UKIP (UK independence party) is a party based around separation from the European Union. They're basically the conservatives, only slightly harder and less legitimate. They're the only party to touch on the subject of the European Union (to whom Britain pays £40,000,000 a day for membership, and only receives £100,000,000 in grants per year, while Spain receives closer to £1.5 billion), and the only party I'd consider voting for.

I'm not into politics much, and the only area I really care about is crime. The British have become the most criminal nation in Europe, and London (my city) is the most dangerous place in the EU. As stated, none of our political leaders are willing to tackle crime, and Britain has adopted RIDICULOUS policies towards it. Some may surprise those from foreign countries.
Britain's crime is mostly youth-centric. People between the ages of 12-17 commit a majority of petty/street-level crime. To highlight our problems I'd like to bring forward a few cases:

Quote

Ernest Norton, (aged 67) was playing Cricket with his son (aged 17) in Erith leisure centre. Five children (ages 10 - 13) began pelting Norton with rocks and bricks. One brick hit him in the side of the head, fractured his cheek-bone and caused him to have a heart attack and die. The oldest boy was given a two-year manslaughter sentence, that was later 'quashed' due to insubstantial evidence. In other words, no punishment was given.

Quote

Fiona Pilkington (aged 38) lived alone with her mentally-handicapped 18-year old daughter and dyslexic son. For over a decade she received taunts from local youths and had her house repeatedly vandalized. After calling police almost monthly for a decade, they only visited 8 times, and failed to show up in time to stop the yobs. Yobs also locked Fiona's severely dislexic son in a shed and beat him with a metal bar. In 2007, Fiona killed herself and her daughter by setting fire to her car. No charges were made.

Quote

Two boys (aged 11 and 12) beat two other boys (aged 9 and 11) with metal rods, cut them with glass and forced them to perform sexual acts; before dropping a ceramic pot on one's head (which caused concussion). After torturing the boys for over 2 hours, one escaped and managed to escape and was found covered in blood by locals. When they arrived at the scene of the crime, the boy (aged 11) had been left for dead, unconscious in a hole. After torturing for two hours with intent to kill, the purportrators recieved on a five year sentence.

Quote

A Yorkshire resident who reported that 'gypsies' were breaking and entering with intent to steal, was arrested for 'hate crimes'. The resident was accused of racism, while the Gypsies who broke into his home went unrepromanded (even though they lived only a few hundred yards away).

In all of these cases, the police had the ability to act and punish. But they failed to. All of the victims suffered beyond comprehension, while the perpetrators recieved minor sentences. There are thousands more cases like this, but these were the first three that sprung to mind. Next month Britain will be electing a new leader, but I very much doubt any changes will take place.
This isn't a regional affair, so I feel justified in putting this topic in 'general talk'. It's a serious issue affected many European nations: a surge of liberal attitudes. Immigration in Sweden is another issue I could cover, but I feel I've talk enough..
It is for this reason I am angered when parties push 'environmental' issues. F--- the environment, my entire nation is at risk of killing itself...

Edited by DodgyPhil, 15 April 2010 - 02:00 PM.

[rvalkass]

DodgyPhil, on Apr 15 2010, 02:58 PM, said:

... to the point where criminality is rewarded and those who live by the law suffer.

In most situations, I would disagree with this point. While there are extreme examples (grossly magnified by the media) the vast majority of situations see criminals punished, and those who abide by the law with cordial relations with the police. Where I live the police hold regular meetings with residents to keep both the residents and the police up to date with various issues that need dealing with. The police also regularly walk their beats, and are friendly to people rather than creating a "them and us" situation, and willing to help those citizens who need it. Yet we have one of the lowest crime rates in the country, so criminals are clearly punished when necessary and whatever they are doing is having an effect.

DodgyPhil, on Apr 15 2010, 02:58 PM, said:

Our political parties don't seem to care either?
-The conservatives, once a hard-line party determined to decrease taxes and stamp out crime, has become limp-wristed and adopted 'green' policies to fit in.
-Labour, once the working man's party, has been in power for over 10 years and has destroyed the working-class (and our country).
-The only party not to change much is the Liberal-democrats: they were also a joke.
-The BNP (British National Party) are quite a troubling force. They plan to practically cease immigration and kick-out swathes of legal immigrants from the country. They also want to introduce corporal punishment for petty-crime. While they're the only party to come close to tackling issues I care about, they're far far too extreme.
-UKIP (UK independence party) is a party based around separation from the European Union. They're basically the conservatives, only slightly harder and less legitimate. They're the only party to touch on the subject of the European Union (to whom Britain pays £40,000,000 a day for membership, and only receives £100,000,000 in grants per year, while Spain receives closer to £1.5 billion), and the only party I'd consider voting for.

The Tories care only about upper-middle England, and are totally unaware of the world outside of rural Oxfordshire and Surrey. Their policies on crime are useless simply because the worst crime they ever experience is someone pouring bubble bath in their local duckpond. Labour have also moved the same way in recent years, and both Labour and the Tories have lost any remaining shred of credibility due to the expenses scandal. The BNP and UKIP are both single-issue parties, with little else in the way of policies on general issues - does anyone have any idea of the BNP's education policies for example? And I fail to see how either of them would tackle crime effectively. Introducing corporal punishment for petty crime is possibly the worst policy I have ever heard from a political party.

DodgyPhil, on Apr 15 2010, 02:58 PM, said:

I'm not into politics much, and the only area I really care about is crime. The British have become the most criminal nation in Europe, and London (my city) is the most dangerous place in the EU.

What evidence do you have for this? The European Sourcebook shows that things aren't exactly as bad as you may think. It is also important to consider the differences in laws between countries. What goes down as a drug crime in the UK for example, is considered on the same level as a speeding ticket in some countries, while is punished even more severely in others. This applies to all sorts of crimes, and is something to bear in mind.

For example, the rate of crime in England and Wales is currently growing at only the 10th fastest rate in Europe, behind Greece, Switzerland, Poland, etc. The crime rate in Scotland has actually fallen in recent years. According to recent figures, on the number of criminal offences per person, the England and Wales are second in Europe behind Sweden, Scotland is 5th and Northern Ireland is 10th. Countries like Finland, Belgium and Denmark have very similar figures - there really isn't a lot in it at the top of the table. As Finland is often considered one of the safest nations in Europe, the quality of all these statistics needs to be called into question - just what exactly counts as a crime?

Remember also that many studies use peoples 'perception' or 'feeling' of security, safety and criminality in their home country. Considering the media in the UK, that's a useless metric to use for anything.

[DodgyPhil]

Quote

And I fail to see how either of them would tackle crime effectively. Introducing corporal punishment for petty crime is possibly the worst policy I have ever heard from a political party.

I was in no way supporting the BNP, I was simply highlighting the fact that a party that supports corporal punishment is the only alternative to no punishment at all.

Quote

For example, the rate of crime in England and Wales is currently growing at only the 10th fastest rate in Europe, behind Greece, Switzerland, Poland, etc. The crime rate in Scotland has actually fallen in recent years. According to recent figures, on the number of criminal offences per person, the England and Wales are second in Europe behind Sweden, Scotland is 5th and Northern Ireland is 10th. Countries like Finland, Belgium and Denmark have very similar figures - there really isn't a lot in it at the top of the table. As Finland is often considered one of the safest nations in Europe, the quality of all these statistics needs to be called into question - just what exactly counts as a crime?

Maybe I shouldn't have talked about statistics. What I'm more interested in is the morality behind top judges and a legion of lawyers who always seem to get their way. It's a good point about the definition of crime, and I'm sure a large portion of crime isn't reported. However- Britain has the worst violent crime (assault) record in Europe in terms of number of crimes per capita.

Quote

Their policies on crime are useless simply because the worst crime they ever experience is someone pouring bubble bath in their local duckpond

You seem to be under the misconception that crime only affects the lower rungs of society. In London there is little geographical divide between rich and poor. I live about two blocks away from a council estate (quite a nice one) but only a few roads further and you enter one of the most deprived areas of London, where very poor immigrants share a majority of the population. Most middle-class people experience crimes such as burglary or theft far more frequently than the poor, while they experience far fewer assaults. I won't pretend (as a middle-class person) that I understand the perpetrators, but I've come into contact with them on more than one occasion, I've been mugged three times in the last six months.

Quote

Remember also that many studies use peoples 'perception' or 'feeling' of security, safety and criminality in their home country. Considering the media in the UK, that's a useless metric to use for anything.

While I'm sure the tabloids pour on a certain amount of shock over these cases, they're far from rare. The tabloids aren't lying about the outcomes of the cases, or the matter of the crime; they're just sensationalizing it.

Anyway, I'm probably not speaking for the whole of England. I notice you're from Devon, so I have no idea how crime is where you are.

[rvalkass]

DodgyPhil, on Apr 15 2010, 05:53 PM, said:

I was in no way supporting the BNP, I was simply highlighting the fact that a party that supports corporal punishment is the only alternative to no punishment at all.

Likewise. I think the other parties shy away from saying anything because current budget cuts mean that improvements can't be made - we can only stay where we are with regards to the number of police officers, etc. Rather than be honest and say that, the major parties just avoid saying anything at all.

DodgyPhil, on Apr 15 2010, 05:53 PM, said:

Maybe I shouldn't have talked about statistics. What I'm more interested in is the morality behind top judges and a legion of lawyers who always seem to get their way. It's a good point about the definition of crime, and I'm sure a large portion of crime isn't reported. However- Britain has the worst violent crime (assault) record in Europe in terms of number of crimes per capita.

Judges are the be all and end all with respect to the interpretation of the letter of the law, along with precedent set down by previous judges and juries. The recent cases of MPs selling their ability to pass laws to the highest bidder adds a frightening new element to this too.

True about assaults, but Britain is still behind many other nations such as the US and South Africa. Also bear in mind differences in categorisation of them. I know I keep going on about statistics, but they make a huge difference.

DodgyPhil, on Apr 15 2010, 05:53 PM, said:

You seem to be under the misconception that crime only affects the lower rungs of society. In London there is little geographical divide between rich and poor. I live about two blocks away from a council estate (quite a nice one) but only a few roads further and you enter one of the most deprived areas of London, where very poor immigrants share a majority of the population. Most middle-class people experience crimes such as burglary or theft far more frequently than the poor, while they experience far fewer assaults. I won't pretend (as a middle-class person) that I understand the perpetrators, but I've come into contact with them on more than one occasion, I've been mugged three times in the last six months.

I was trying to make the point that many MPs live in areas such as Chipping Norton, Didcot, Henley-on-Thames, etc. These are predominantly high wealth areas and cause the MPs (on colossal incomes and expenses) to become detached from those people they are supposed to be representing. They don't, for example, experience the same rates of burglaries, car crime, violence, etc. as the rest of the country. To them, crime is not a high priority.

DodgyPhil, on Apr 15 2010, 05:53 PM, said:

While I'm sure the tabloids pour on a certain amount of shock over these cases, they're far from rare. The tabloids aren't lying about the outcomes of the cases, or the matter of the crime; they're just sensationalizing it.

While the outcomes are true, their proportionality is not. If the tabloids were believed, not a single criminal would ever have been sentenced to prison. The story "Burglar gets 6 month custodial sentence" is fairly unremarkable, although far more common.

DodgyPhil, on Apr 15 2010, 05:53 PM, said:

Anyway, I'm probably not speaking for the whole of England. I notice you're from Devon, so I have no idea how crime is where you are.

Take a look http://maps.police.u...devon-cornwall/

[anwiii]

i like the title, but i think it's overly exagerated and doesn't really state the truth just like the quotes fail to really tell the whole story.

i'm not really keeping current records on current time in great britain, but i don't know what officers have to gain by arresting a resident rather than gypsies who were supposedly breaking in to a home. fact is, the quote included "intent to steal". that part of the quote right there tells me that the whole thing is bogus. nobody knows someones intent unless the person with the intent tells the other person what their intent is.

so while i was reading these quotes, my first thought was "where are they coming from" and "are they reliable". well i have just gave one example of why i think the quotes are unreliable.

so it's very clear to me that there is more to those stories than what was printed or quoted in this thread. it's really hard to comment on it when we really don't know the whole story.

also, talking about gypsies, whenever i think of gypsies, i think of the good cheesy movie, "thinner" haha what a good movie....

[sheepdog]

Sounds like you have a really bad situation there. If your police force and judicial system is not punishing criminals, and your government has stripped away your right to own a gun to protect yourself, it's no wonder criminals are running rampant. There is no deterent to stop them from commiting crimes.

[networker]

At least Britain has good gun control laws. Nowhere near as bad as the U.S.
I don't know what the U.K or London's murder rate is, but a city like Chicago
thinks they are doing good if they only have about 500 murders a year.

It often seems unfortunate
that the Police will most help those who pay the most taxes.
That seems to happen regardless of country really.

[sheepdog]

Quote

At least Britain has good gun control laws. Nowhere near as bad as the U.S.

Ok, I find this statement totally confusing. How can gun control laws be considered good when the banning of guns puts othewise law abiding citizens at risk and unable to defend themselves and their property and their very lives from criminals who don't give a rat's hind end about obeying laws????

[rvalkass]

In the UK pretty much anyone can own a shotgun, or multiple shotguns, as long as the barrel is longer than 24" and the bore is over 2". Other firearms are under much stricter control, and you must provide a valid reason for owning one (generally related either to your work or to sport) to the police. I'm not sure how the law would treat a case where someone has used a shotgun to defend themselves, but I imagine it would not be favourable unless the attacker was also armed with a firearm. The law in the UK allows "reasonable force" to defend yourself, family and property. Generally, that means using household objects (not specially designed weapons, as that shows intent to harm) of the same type your attacker is armed with (so you couldn't stab them if they're only armed with a pebble, for example, but you could throw blunt objects at them). This provides defence and security to people from attackers, while not requiring firearms and the dangers associated.

You can also look at the statistics. The United States, each year, has around 28 firearms murders per 1,000,000 people. For the UK this figure is 1 firearms murder per million population. That figure includes Northern Ireland, where gun laws are far more open and allow the ownership of firearms for supposed self-defence.

[anwiii]

sheepdog, on Apr 19 2010, 11:13 PM, said:

Ok, I find this statement totally confusing. How can gun control laws be considered good when the banning of guns puts othewise law abiding citizens at risk and unable to defend themselves and their property and their very lives from criminals who don't give a rat's hind end about obeying laws????

i agree with you to a point. in fact, here in the united states we are in fact allowed to carry guns as long as they are visable. ccw permits are harder to get though depending on the county you live in. i think anyone who buys a gun though should be required to take a training course. it's a deadly weapon and too many people own guns that don't know how to use them. it's like handing over a license to drive to someone that doesn't know how to drive.

also, why would anyone want the right to match fire power with fire power. that gets even more dangerous for those who don't know how to use a weapon properly or protect it from someone stealing it or even a child finding it. also, chances are likely that someone that is assaulting you doesn't have an oozie.

the only people really affected by not being able to protect themselves properly are felons. they aren't even allowed to own a hand gun even if they only wrote a bad check for over $500. that is considered a felony. the person doesn't even have to be dangerous if society dictates that they give up rights from owning a hand gun or voting, etc if they commited a very mild criminal act which could have only been done out of survival puposes to put food on a families plate.

so i really do believe everyone should be able to protect themselves, with limits because not everyone is qualified to use a weapon and take the proper precautions to use AND own own safely and legally. legally meaning don't be shooting someone on your property just because you're paranoid. safey can include many things and i believe that everyone should go through a week training class and be certified which would include when the right time is when you can branish a weapon or even point it at someone without firing a bullet.

now if i am taking things literally where a person should have a right to match fire power with fire power, we might as well legalize grenades or even booby traps around our house with a warning sign in front. we aren't living in a dirty harry movie so most gun control laws don't even affect the average citizen.

what's funny to me though is i used to go camping/hiking/fishing a lot in yellowstone national park. national parks have a law that you cannot carry any sort of gun in to a park. that's not the funny part. in yellowstone, there are a lot of bears including grizzlies which are actually growing in population and seen more and more by the tourists. well there was one incident where a big grizzly started coming in to a tent because it smelled food. the guy inside the tent shot and killed the bear. in this situation, this guy only got a slap on the wrist. if they would have found the gun sooner, he probably would have been arrested as the laws are strict in national parks to preserve nature, wildlife, and animals. but since it was a life or death situation and he was protecting his home(a tent or a car can be considered a home in some cases), he wasn't charged. so even the national gun control laws sorta contradict eachother. and btw, i used to go in that park with someone who would carry in a .45 mag religiously but never had to use it. although i've come across and seen many bears, they really will just leave you alone if you don't startle them or if you don't get too close if their young are around.

in most states in the united states, there is a term called exculated force which means normally, you don't pull a gun out if an attacker isn't using a deadly weapon, but in most states, you are allowed to shoot someone who has just commited a felony...armed or unarmed. the laws to me just don't make any sense because a lot of them contradict themselves. that's why there is a term called mitigating circumstances where you are allowed to tell your story in from of a judge or jury since every circumstance is different. but then your life pretty much depends on a jury who was too stupid to get out of jury duty or 1 single judge and his own interpretation of the law as laws aren't very specific and can be understood many ways depending on the person you talk to. so as far as gun control laws, every judge will have their own interpretation as well as any jury. some people think that if you even own a gun, it should be illegal so the laws to me don't matter. what matters is the crap shoot you take to defend yourself in court if there was ever an instance where you had to use a gun to harm someone or some thing.