Soft Soft Soft. Its time to get tough in the UK

Discussion in 'The Quarterdeck' started by brazenhussy, Feb 24, 2008.

Welcome to the Navy Net aka Rum Ration

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial RN website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. We are just too effing nice in this country.
    What has gone wrong ?
    This has only happened in the last few years.
    Remember the Poll tax riots, the Poll tax was nothing compared to the way we are being ripped off with everything now. We are just accepting the spiralling cost of petrol, energy, house prices and all sorts of increased taxation. This is because we just accept the corporate greed and take the rip off merchants lying down.
    We need to get tough on gangs and criminals, they need proper sentences and prison should be a horrible place that is a real punishment and deterrent from crime. Not the sky TV plush cells with nice food and facilities !!! WTF !!
    We need to get the foreign crims out, no ifs buts or human rights to ease up the cost and numbers that are in jail in the first place.
    Immigration needs to be controlled to prevent terrorists and criminals living amongst us, only immigrants that contribute to society should be allowed here.
    Human rights is bull spit and should be scrapped and common sense brought back in.
    The benefit scum society need to be curbed as well, they should work for their cash like the rest of us doing jobs for the community and the cheats need to be punished enough to stop the fraud.
    The bottom line is we just accept the way our country is changing and before we know it it will be unrecognisable to what it was before and it will be too late to get it back.
    So who is going to get tough, it seems like the Labour lot are soft as putty for getting us into this mess.
     
  2. It will never happen with the politicians that we have now. Also too many do-gooders saying prisons are too tough. There is no politician in this country who will stand and say enough is enough! I am NOT pro BNP but they make you think. Enoch Powell will be proven right one day and it will be a revolting time :threaten:
     
  3. Cor ! Careful Brazen you'll have all the liberals on here, having the vapours.
    RoofRat
     
  4. Might I just add my tuppenceworth here if I may. I have an application outstanding with HMPS and after the last test, I was invited to visit the prison where I will be employed, should I get through the checks etc.

    Now I am about as liberal as Attilla the Hun :-O so I see where you are coming from brazen so please do not shoot me.

    This is what I saw

    A fairly new (14 years) local prison in Surrey.

    TVs in cells yes, but a privilage which can easily be taken away. They don't get free newspapers any more and if they bust the telly - no new one unless its a tekky fault

    Food, adequate but nothing I would ever consider paying for in a caff or canteen.

    Gym facilities for staff and prisoners. Each prisoner gets about 1-1.5 hours a week roughly. Allegedly made available to maintain health and help to curb aggression - not sure how successful.

    Big portion of day spent in cells, I would guess about 60% unless prisoner has a job within the place or is doing education. I was advised that a large number of them are below a basic standard of education.

    Alcohol/Drug treatment programmes - might as well while they are there.

    Not a hellhole but not somewhere I would ever like to stay in for more than 24 hours (to live that is).

    Ok thats me done, and as I said before, no one could ever accuse me of being PC, liberal and definitely not a do-gooder.

    stab
     
  5. B.H. Just read your post. Where do we go to elect you as our next P.M ? My daughter is a senior prison officer and you would not believe the crap she tells me. :threaten:
     
  6. I was always taught prison was a place you were locked away in, because you'd done something wrong, and were not treated as well as those on the outside, and was a place to be avoided. If it was a place like DQs at Pompey in the 60s, where "Yooman rites" was never heard of (or if it had been, nobody was told about it), then there wouldn't be so many people going in, and not many repeat offenders. Let's kick all this rehabilitation crap into touch, and make prison time a PUNISHMENT.
     
  7. The cost of living in proportion to mean incomes has actually decreased over that past 50 years. When my mother was at college in the late 1940s, 40% of the mean income typically went on renting property. Petrol was proportionately considerably more expensive, whilst public transport was proportionally much cheaper than it is today! The proportion of income spent on food is also significantly lower than it was in, say the 1940s. Intensive farming and cheap imports have brought many foodstuffs which only the wealthy could once afford, to the grasp of the many. Take the price of a whole chicken. In the 1940s the price of a chicken was the equivalent of around £30 with game such as partridge costing considerably more. Salmon, which was always bought wild, was also out reach to most people. In 1910 a melon cost the equivalent of £60 each! A side of wild salmon would be the same as the mean wage earner received in a week - and remember that until Churchill succeeded Attlee as PM, people earning less than around twice the mean income paid no income tax. The Conservatives extended the tax base to include those of mean and below mean incomes for the first time in our history, ostensibly on the grounds that more should pay for the burgeoning welfare state, despite Conservative promises to the contrary made during World War II.

    As for scrapping the Human Rights Act, I take it you would be happy to see what used to happen, with the UK regularly been arraigned before the Strasbourg Court, something that now only happens rarely.

    On the common sense front, it all depends upon whose, politically powerful, dominant "common sense" prevails. For example in the Germany of the 1890s (when Hitler was a child) there were those amongst the German Establishment who thought it was common sense that the Jews of Germany would eventually be killed en masse - contrary to the popular British misconception that this idea arose with the Nazis and was nurtured by Hitler. Neither the Church of England nor the British Establishment sought to criticise these malign, but deeply held beliefs of some fellow Protestants, until the Archbishop of Canterbury finally attacked the Nazis over the introduction of the Nuremberg Laws.

    There are also many in this country who believe that recriminalising homosexuality and abortion, making divorce extremely difficult for the masses and putting the children of single parents in institutions should return. Indeed the latter was at one time supported by a recent, former, Prime Minister, who many RR'ers seem to admire!

    End of rant! Have a nicey nicey day!
     
  8. Cheap Now. No way .My council tax is now £1300. In 1978 my rates bill was £70. Which was less than a weeks wage. Christ how many of us are on £1300 Per week.
     
  9. Cheap Now. No way .My council tax is now £1300. In 1978 my rates bill was £70. Which was less than a weeks wage. Christ how many of us are on £1300 Per week.
     
  10. Seaweed

    Seaweed War Hero Book Reviewer

    IMHO we should separate punishment from rehabilitation, in the sense that first of all offenders should be sentenced to a punishing experience that fits their crime(s). They should serve exactly the sentence the judge or magistrate hands down and the sentencer should be responsible for setting it so that there is no release while the prisoner is any sort of threat to any member of the public. This means more magistrates' sentencing would be passed 'upstairs' to the Crown Court; to redress this, magistrates' powers should be extended to give a year's imprisonment rather thanonly six months. At the end of his sentence there should be, in addition, a compulsory rehabilitation period with passing-out criteria.

    As points of detail, all visiting should be without physical contact in the hope that, bent screws apart, the flow of drugs into jails might reduce. Prison officers' duties sholud be rotated so that no familiarity arises between them and the criminals.

    There should also be a watertight process of criminal bankruptcy whereby all assets of a prisoner are recovered back to the earliest of his criminal activities. All houses and vehicles used in crime should be forfeit, even if the householder is another family member.

    Finally a custodial sentence should automatically imply a suspension of all civil 'rights', that is to say criminals should be treated as the outlaws they have chosen to be.
     
  11. I think the big change has been the migration from a predominantly socialist economy from post WWII until the 1970s to the more comprehensive laissez-faire economy that we have now. We've moved the perception of responsibility around. In many way's I agree that it's not a good place to be, although think the causes are very different from what you're suggesting.

    In the british version of socialism we had large state controlled industry which was inefficient, unproductive and carried huge amounts of fat with high employment levels and little incentive to improve. A welfare state in all but name. As the economy has forced efficiency and effectiveness we've moved the nature of that welfare state.

    I would agree that the current iteration is over-generous, both in direct spend and associated spend such as the health service. I'd also suggest that a lot of the cost of the socialist economy has moved to an excessive level of governance as the state is increasingly intrusive and requires ever greater levels of co-ordination, synchronisation and supervision. Where we had a lot of industrial inefficiency we now have a lot of government inefficiency, all we've done is moved the costs around.

    In terms of responsibility we also seem extremely enthusiastic to hand over ever greater powers to the state, in my view the wrong thing to be doing. The state is supposed to serve the citizen, not the other way round. The pressures for that come from the reactionary right wing, with demands for ever greater compulsion as well as those segments which seek to control ones interaction with others in society; frequently described as political correctness although personally I find use of the term to be weak minded and ill thought through.

    In many way's I'd agree that our current judicial system doesn't work as well as it should, although a significant part of that is a lack of clarity about what it's there for. I'm not sure if you've ever been in a prison, I've had cause to visit in an official capacity a couple of times, and I don't recognise what you're describing at all.

    I read a study mid last year about the success of rehabilitation and it observed that most prisoners are illiterate and innumerate, education and training are rarely delivered to the levels required to reduce chances of re-offending.

    Deterrence doesn't work, so the effort should go into improving rehabilitation. There are always going to be some who can't, or won't, be rehabilitated and sentencing should be allowed to reflect that.

    so is this going to make a significant difference to numbers or are you merely regurgitating headlines from the right wing tabloid media?

    I wouldn't have any real issue with the concept, although I do believe that the free movement of goods and services implies a corresponding free movement of resources including people. My main concerns around restrictions would be that the free movement carries with it a return; the immigrant is not a net cost to the taxpayer.

    Again is this a significant issue or more right wing tabloidese?

    So what is common sense?

    Change happens, we can't turn the clock back, do we really want to?

    Is it the responsibility of the incumbent government or the electorate who put them there?
     
  12. Quote::
    So who is going to get tough, it seems like the Labour lot are soft as putty for getting us into this mess.

    Is it the responsibility of the incumbent government or the electorate who put them there?

    Successive governments both Labour and conservatives have promised in their manifesto's to get tough on crime. Why haven't these governments implemented this promise?


    Quote::
    Human rights is bull spit and should be scrapped and common sense brought back in.

    So what is common sense?


    Do you really have to ask?
     
  13. Occasionally i am called to a job at the local prison and i can't say i would enjoy being detained in there. My observations are of a cold dank environment with the cells containing only a bed, bedside table and occasionally a television that appears not to have Sky or any other satellite facility. I however point out that it isnt supposed to be a holiday camp and the punishment should fit the crime.
    .
     
  14. Take away the TV and the mattress
     
  15. Did some work a few years ago in the Section 42 compound of Albany .. the top security bit where they used to keep all the terrorists - Now turned into the bit were they segregate all the sex offenders .. some nasty NASTY men in there!

    As it happened had to take the car in (Sierra estate) so had a warder with me at all times - One old guy weeding the garden in the compound asked me what car it was .. the warder told me that the last time that guy had SEEN a car the mini was brand new! God only knows what he had done and I didn't ask .. but for him life was exactly that!

    Unfortuanately we dont have so much space as the US with the odd desert that we could build a prison in .. But we used to have hard labour in places like Dartmoor where they were given a sledge hammer and made to crush rocks for the roads .. and given the state of most of the roads in the UK why cant we put these prisoners to work road building or is chaining them all together and really making them work against their human rights?
     
  16. I liked the way how Cyprus dealt with foreigners and crime. Basically, if a foreigner's crime was drugs/bad assualt, they would be jailed and either kept there or deported.

    Usually, deporyed, they loved to do that.

    Now, I say, if someone committing crime in the UK and is a foreigner, I reckon, they should be deported, obv, based on certain things.
     
  17. sgtpepperband

    sgtpepperband War Hero Moderator Book Reviewer

  18. Which certain things in particular?

    The devil is, as ever, in the detail...
     
  19. :D
     
  20. Common sense mens different things to different people.

    To me it would mean actually thinking things through and coming up with coherent arguments, understanding the consequences of decisions and being aware of the results of ones actions.

    Clearly others may not agree.

    Similarly, stands to reason usually doesn't.

    :D
     

Share This Page