SubJeff on 19/9/2006 at 22:39
What? Of course I get paid. Do you?
Quote Posted by Strontium Dog
SubjEff, you're well behind the times there. We officially dropped the 50% tax-rate earlier today...
...As for your "state benefits are to blame for juvenile delinquency" claim, that doesn't explain why a country like Sweden, where state benefits are FAR more generous, has much lower incidences of such crime.
Wow! I knew the Lib Dems were talking about dropping it but I'm surprised that "earlier today" can be "well" behind the times. I might actually vote for them if they get some proper (read: fair) tax policies.
And I didn't say "state benefits are to blame for juvenile delinquency" anywhere. Anywhere. Sheesh, GBM would be raking it in with his reading lessons if you guys would bother taking him up.
I think that juvenille delinquency in this country is caused primarily by poor parenting coupled with the current chav culture. Yes, chav culture. Call it what you want, but I think that's a pretty good definition. It encompases lack of respect for yourself and others, lack of any feeling of social responsibility, lack of drive to study or better yourself, tv fostered dreams of "fame" for fames sake (sans talent natch), thinking the world owes you something for nothing, the excessive drinking culture and parents who cannot and do not teach their children discipline or respect for anything at all.
Then you have failure of the law to adequately punish (and even prosecute) and thus adequately deter and/or reform. Did you know that in the UK one man approached aggressively by 5 others will be the one in the dock if he pre-emptively strikes? Or that even IF they attack first and he beats them all he can be done for excessive use of force if he injures one of them to any appreciable degree? I don't know how it works in the US but I'm sure it's not this dumb. Everyone in the UK (including Paz and StD) knows that the law is biased against victims in cases of violent attack, burglary and death/injury by dangerous/drunk driving. Of course there are cases when these laws work, but every single week there are cases reported where the law has failed big time. Every week.
I think we need a major re-think of many of the laws in the UK, less insane PCness (TOM AND JERRY FFS, YES IT'S A SYMPTOM) and more facing up to the facts. Chav scum are just that. If someone is going to behave like an animal they shouldn't moan about being labelled as such. Yes, I realise that some of you are going to take offence at the term "chav scum" but I use to mean those that deserve it, and that doesn't mean those well meaning, hard working people that the newspapers stick in the "chav" box, but those wasters and assholes that infest the urban hellholes of this country. Yes there are exeptions blah blah, some place not so bad some worse yadda yadda shut up you know what I mean
oudeis on 19/9/2006 at 23:08
Let's get this topic back on track (since I am guilty of helping to derail it):
Everytime I hear about how cameras in public places are going to make us all safer my blood runs about a degree-and-a-half colder. I can't argue that they don't work- The investigation of the subway bombings in London proved they do, not to mention the effect of the ubiquifying (new word!) traffic cameras at intersections- but it really does seem the proverbial first step on a slippery slope. From thence to 24-hour audio monitoring/taping seems only a baby's footwidth away, and if that doesn't scare you then you scare me.
On a lighter note, I was somewhat amused by the cameras with the PA system. Who decides what the human monitors get to say? Or who gets to say it? Imagine- you jaywalk across a deserted intersection late at night and suddenly hear the sound of a scuffle. You look around, alarmed, only to realize it's coming from the camera speakers: "(Muffled grunts, sounds of two people grappling, a sharp whack as a microphone hits a desk) Let go, asshole! You got to yell at the pedestrian the last time!". :p
Paz on 19/9/2006 at 23:45
Quote Posted by Subjective Effect
And I didn't say "state benefits are to blame for juvenile delinquency" anywhere. Anywhere. Sheesh, GBM would be raking it in with his reading lessons if you guys would bother taking him up.
One person summaried it as such, so less of the "guys" there. However, I can see why he did so as you were less than forthcoming about what your theory was, beyond making some vague statements about "handouts" and soforth.
Quote Posted by Subjective Effect
I think that juvenille delinquency in this country is caused primarily by poor parenting coupled with the current chav culture. Yes, chav culture. Call it what you want, but I think that's a pretty good definition. It encompases lack of respect for yourself and others, lack of any feeling of social responsibility, lack of drive to study or better yourself, tv fostered dreams of "fame" for fames sake (sans talent natch), thinking the world owes you something for nothing, the excessive drinking culture and parents who cannot and do not teach their children discipline or respect for anything at all.
I believe this section has the most relevance and at least is an acceptance that the issue, firstly, is not one of cause-effect simplicity and, secondly, is born of and tied to a number of factors; in themselves, less than easy to untangle. It offers nothing in terms of potential progress or solution, but I'm hardly going to begrudge that after suggesting I don't really have any myself.
Quote Posted by Subjective Effect
law shenanigans
I do not think you are as much of an expert in this area as you seem to believe. Unfortunately we don't have a British version of RBJ hanging around to tell you how ridiculous you're being with a lot of this, but it is my suspicion that this is what would occur if we did.
I certainly would not concur offhand with the belief that UK law is "biased against victims" in relation to any crime. That is a crass and entirely unresearched comment. Also a slightly puzzling one, as you say shortly afterwards that the law sometimes works in the instances in question. In fact, it seems difficult to read anything from your statement other than a suggestion that the law is working *the majority of the time*. Even if we take the "every week" statistic at face value.
The law does sometimes fail, regrettably. I suspect we might quibble over which particular areas we consider "failures", however. Again though, what would be your proposed reform in this area? Is it the judges who are being inconsistent? How are the successfully resolved cases differing from those which do not meet your exacting legal standards?
"less insane PCness ... and more facing up to the facts" is not a platform for legal reform. It's barely a sentence with any meaning at all, beyond received phraseology and some kind of anger or frustration which I don't think you can even put a finger on yourself.
And I think it would be remiss of me not to mention your odd rhetorical tic. Rhetorical tic.
SD on 19/9/2006 at 23:53
Quote Posted by Subjective Effect
And I didn't say "state benefits are to blame for juvenile delinquency" anywhere. Anywhere.
Quote Posted by Subjective Effect
I think this problem stems from cultural attitudes that themselves are have been in part forged by the welfare system
The way you phrased it, it sure does look a lot like that's what you were saying.
I'm not going to argue that we have some crazy laws here, and our government has crazy priorities, but pinning the blame for all the problems on a handful of nebulous factors strikes me as not being particularly helpful.
Deep Qantas on 20/9/2006 at 02:17
Tax policies that are fair? Fair to whom?
How about effective?
SubJeff on 20/9/2006 at 07:51
Quote Posted by Paz
One person summaried it as such, so less of the "guys" there.
Oh, yeah. I didn't mean you Paz, I meant all of the people on the forum who put words in other people's mouths. Happens all the time.
Quote:
I certainly would not concur offhand with the belief that UK law is "biased against victims" in relation to any crime.
When it comes to crude property crime this there is enough of a problem that you can most certainly find examples of the law failing the victim reported in the newspapers at least once a week. Where perps get ridiculously low sentences after ruining someone else's life or aren't even prosectuted. No, I don't have stats, but that info I gave about fighting against muggers is the truth. I used to know a magistrate with whom I would discuss this issue (as I was in Sunderland at the time and the student population there was frequently assaulted by twocers for the usual reason - none).
Quote:
Again though, what would be your proposed reform in this area? Is it the judges who are being inconsistent? How are the successfully resolved cases differing from those which do not meet your exacting legal standards?
It's nothing to do with
my "exacting legal standards". There are a number of ridiculous things going on in the legal system here. Now that we have abolished capital punishment we are particularly lenient on killers in many cases - be it from dangerous driving to actual assault. Furthermore we are lenient on "minor" offenses. I think we need a "3 strikes" habitual offender system here.
Quote:
"less insane PCness ... and more facing up to the facts" is not a platform for legal reform. It's barely a sentence with any meaning at all, beyond received phraseology and some kind of anger or frustration which I don't think you can even put a finger on yourself.
We are so scared to say "You sir, are a BAD parent. You children are a disgrace and your way of life is pathetic." Far too much pussyfooting around the truth, and the causes of many of our problems. How can we fix something if we refuse to accept the truth of the problem? And fyi, that comment of mine wasn't about legal reform, I said it in relation to being able to tackle the causes of problems within the family. It's social, man. And thus fluffy.
And I said forged "in part" StD. I certainly do not blame the benefits system FOR juvenille delinquency. But I do think that the system facillitates a way of life (a path no-one HAS to take) that can lead to attitudes that THEN lead to it. And I certainly don't think that the things I mentioned are nebulous - there are many things you can do or change that would help the situation. It's just that it's hard for politicians, who want the vote, to come out and say that there are large sections of the population who need to rethink their entire value (or lack of) system.
StD works for the CRB iirc. I'm sure he has some info about the laws here that he could enlighten us with.
Matthew on 20/9/2006 at 11:10
Quote Posted by Paz
I do not think you are as much of an expert in this area as you seem to believe. Unfortunately we don't have a British version of RBJ hanging around to tell you how ridiculous you're being with a lot of this, but it is my suspicion that this is what would occur if we did.
Well, criminal law is not my area of practice, and I'm not claiming to be as experienced as RBJ, but I am a solicitor. The basic idea of self-defence under British law is that it is acceptable, but you must be proportionate in your response - i.e. no bringing guns out to a knife-fight, or weapons to a punch-up.
As for the sentencing, that will of course depend on circumstances, the minimum tariff recommended in such cases (or increasingly imposed by the government) etc. I don't have access to my crimininal books today, but I'll post something on it tomorrow.
Pitch on 20/9/2006 at 12:08
Quote Posted by Matthew
you must be proportionate in your response - i.e. no bringing guns out to a knife-fight, or weapons to a punch-up.
Just asking: does this mean that if someone attacks me with a knife and I have a gun I'm not allowed to shoot him?
Phydeaux on 20/9/2006 at 12:18
It's irrelevant, as nearly anything you can use to defend yourself is banned from carry in the UK already, as is carrying anything (banned or not) with the "intent" of using it in self defense. And if such things are used in a self defense situation, even if it saves your life, you can find yourself in as much hot water as the instigator (the same is true in the US as well, like shooting a pistol-armed mugger when you're not allowed to carry a gun).
Chimpy Chompy on 20/9/2006 at 12:26
Hm, I'm not sure about that proportionate bit. I mean, if someone invades my home I should be able to twat them with a heavy object, even if they themselves are using only bare fists. A knife is pretty easy to conceal, and whip out and stab someone with. I shouldn't have to check for certain if the intruder is carrying such a weapon before taking action.
Other thoughts
(1): I should be allowed to strike first
(2): I should be allowed to strike without warning ie surprise attack. A big strong guy, even if unarmed, could probably beat me shitless in a fair fight. Why should I give him the chance?
(3): hitting someone repeatedly in the head once they're down and out cold is obviously going too far tho
(4): Thing is, in a case like this there's probably often a lack of hard evidence, in terms of exactly what happened and who did what first. So it just comes down to householders word vs intruder. In this case, the law should give me the benefit of the doubt, ie be inherently biased towards the householder. Think that's unfair? Don't break into someone's house!
(note that the question of whether or not a physical confrontation is a good idea is a separate issue here.)
Reading through that, I can see that, say, leaping out from a shadow and stabbing a burglar with a carving knife seems a bit over the top. However, again how do you know they don't have a knife themselves? Or worse?
Of course, the big question is how much do current laws match up to Chimpy's Ideal as layed out there? I mean, the tabloids (and Phydeaux) would have me think I'm not allowed to do any more than hide under my bed. Which probably isn't the case. I'm pretty certain I'm allowed to strike out with a heroic frying pan if threatened. I'm just wondering if I should have to wait to be actively threatened before doing that.
