The Smell of Burning Rubber

Discussion in 'Current Affairs' started by finknottle, Jun 21, 2011.

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. Ken Clarke's screwball plan to save money by giving those who plead guilty when charged a 50% reduction in sentence has been dropped in a classic example of a humiliating U-turn and it is my opinion that out of touch Clarke should be sacked today from his position as Justice Secretary.

    I would like to see much tougher sentences for violent crimes, life should mean that you come out of prison in a wooden box, there has been far too much pandering to the guilty in this country by the namby- pamby human rights lot and lawyers.
     
  2. This crusade of yours is getting a bit predictable (and boring) Fink.

    This government is doing things very differently to the previous lot and rather than coming up with their plans which they then force through Parliament, the Coalition has adopted a strategy of engagement and discussion. Some aspects resonate with some sectors of the public while others do not and the sad fact is that such a strategy of "involvement" leaves the government exposed to criticism for dithering, making u-turns, not being decisive etc when in fact all they are trying to do is get people and organisations involved on the basis that there is "no monopoly on good ideas".

    Clarke has "consulted" with hundreds of different organisations across the spectrum of criminal justice and has produced a consolidated set of proposals based on that consultation for debate and consideration. The 50% reduction was one component that the opposition and the media has seized upon and that has now seemingly become the central point of the entire consultation process among a large sector of the general public who cannot (or won't) look any deeper than the front pages of the red tops before jumping on their soap boxes.

    Are you in that group Fink because your posts certainly suggest that you are keener to pick up the cudgel than to pick up on the detail?
     
  3. Let us wait and see how the 'consultation' goes with the public sector workers trades unions.

    As for red tops, I prefer Waitrose ultra soft.
     
  4. Time for the government to take a tough stand with the trade unions. If civil servens cannot see that they are now virtually theonly ones that have final pension salaries then they must be wearing blindfolds.
    The rest of the taxpaying public who are in company pension schemes have had to pay more into the schemes for many years now, time for the serpants to get a dose of reality. if it means they strike....................so be it, at least they will not get paid during the strike.
     
  5. All well but good but I am waiting to hear that MPs will be leading by example and cutting the cost of their own taxpayer-subsidised gold-plated scheme and If not, why not?
     
  6. How did this drift from a discussion on penal reform into civil servants striking over pensions in the space of only 3 posts Fink - or was this just another example of "whoops, dropped a bollock, need to shift target" on your part?
     
  7. Not at all it's a case of natural progression from your post where you raised the matter of the government’s so-called consultation.
     
  8. Nothing natural about it - the issue was and still is penal reform - your "introduction" of the possible response from public sector workers trade unions is an inappropriate deflection from the original post and from this end of the telescope adds nothing to the discussion on penal reform.
     
  9. It's all about trying to reverse the massive and unprecedented cock-ups that your beloved made during their holocaustic reign. Courts have some of the highest public costs of any department and to get someone to plead guilty can save vast amounts of money, but of course, you're not interested in saving are you.
    It was an idea, and like all ideas, someone makes it and then they talk about it to decide if it is feasable or not.

    The days of "I've got a pound lets spend two and **** the outcome" must never be allowed to return.
     
  10. janner

    janner War Hero Book Reviewer

    Its interesting to hear some of the "New" ideas being offerred by Gov.

    Retired Plod head on.....


    Some years ago we ran a system called the overnight file. Paperwork consisted of four sheets of A4 in folder form plus any statements and previous convictions. Offender was put before the next court, usually pleaded guilty and said he/she was sorry and was dealt with there and then by the Magistrates (obviously minor offence only). Police prosecuter (either Inspector or Sergeant) or Solicitor employed by them. Normally the case that no one bothered about Solicitor via legal aid as they preferred to get things sorted ASAP.

    Then CPS came into being, no more overnight stuff, remands in custody whilst CPS got Police to prepare a mountain of paperwork most of which is not used or needed. Because of the delays defendants decide that they will have a brief, even if pleading guilty, for most of them its legal aid and costs them nothing.

    Positive breathtest files are a thing of beauty, running into about 30 pages for the procedure and then the usual CPS requirement.

    It isn't hard to see where the money goes or why you don't see Coppers out and about does it.

    I've been out around 12 years now so not fully current, it would be interesting to hear the views of someone more up to date.
     
  11. Janner - Good post - thanks. Clearly a case of someone having to put their sensible, pragmatic head on and not let themselves get unreasonably distracted by the PC brigade (the other PC, not the Police Constable!!!) and the Human Rights machine. Individual rights do need to be protected but there is a huge gulf between what we do now, what we did then and what is a sensible and appropriate middle ground and a large dose of common sense would not go amiss methinks.
     
  12. Ageing_Gracefully

    Ageing_Gracefully War Hero Moderator Book Reviewer

    The proposals put forward by Ken Clarke were designed to save money. I think that much of this money that KC is looking for could be found by not supplying all the 'extras' that prisoners see as their "right" now. i.e. TVs, well equipped games rooms and gymnasiums.

    By ending up in chokey, they have forfeited their right to the frills and luxuries of normal life. IMHO.

    It is not going to make the slightest difference to re-offending stats but it will save money. Life in prison should not be more luxurious than that which they left to go in to nick. Again, only my humble opinion.
     
  13. wet_blobby

    wet_blobby War Hero Moderator

    The big wheel of invention keeps on turning.

    It starts at the top with common sense, turns a bit and someone says, "hang on, this can be made better". Turns a little bit more and the improvements become imbuggarances, another little turn and they become a bit of a pain, another turn they become expensive, next turn the original idea has been lost. Turns again and all relevance has been lost, damn the expence lets invent something, sod the cost.

    Then.... Turns and someone says. "Hang on, this can be made better". Turns again and someone gets into a position to make things better, next turn they start to make improvements. Before you know it, the wheel turns again, people start saving money and start using common sense and Hey Presto.... We are back at square one again for a couple of years.

    Then....... Someone says "Hang on, this can be made better"........
     
  14. janner

    janner War Hero Book Reviewer

    Two points

    1. Lock up the right two or three people in any one area and the crime rates fall out of all proportion to the number locked up.

    2. The problem with WB's idea is that you have a whole dynasty (CPS) who have no interest in reducing paperwork, its how they make their living.
     
  15. wet_blobby

    wet_blobby War Hero Moderator

    Not just the CPS make a living out of it Janner. They have given every honest Crim and defence Lawyer (Obviously there is no other kind) a decent gambling mans odds on a get out clause due to an Admin cock up. Everyones quids in.
     
  16. janner

    janner War Hero Book Reviewer

    Not forgetting laws written by lawyers for lawyers
     
  17. wet_blobby

    wet_blobby War Hero Moderator

    Dont go deep...... you'll lose finky:slow:
     
  18. I think it would be reasonable to state that all threads meander around the original subject matter and this one is no different.

    To get back on topic:

    Cameron has announced plans for tougher punishment for knife crime
    More life sentences to be handed out, angering Lib Dems
    Prisoners earnings inside prison to be paid to victims of crime
    Squatting to be made into a criminal offence
    Home owners will have the right to defend their property

    This is the tough stance I want to see but I suspect this has been released today to deflect public attention away from the furore surrounding the concerns of senior military officers about our capability.

     
  19. If by "meander" you mean 90 degree divergence then you could be right Fink.

    Ref the announcement by Cameron - I think this is a positive move forward which I would like to see further developed to include "proper" reductions on legal aid stiffer penalties for serious crimes (murder, rape, robbery, drug dealing/smuggling) and a policy of immediate deportation of foreigners who commit crimes in the UK (regardless of whether they have family ties here, like the place a lot or support Fulham!!!!) and I think his statement has the square root of bugger all to do with senior military officvers' comments.

    By the way, returning to the issue of legal aid, was anyone else confused over whether Asil Nadir was or was not being given "legal aid" because my reading of the report suggested that he was being required to provide funds in return for being represented under the legal aid system but with the benefit to him being that legal aid lawyers are generally cheaper - though it still looks like he might make on the deal at taxpayer's expense) Asil Nadir: Polly Peck tycoon granted legal aid leaving taxpayers with big bill - Telegraph
     
  20. Can you watch your headings?
    I logged on to this because I thought it was about lesbians! What a let down!,just politics!
     

Share This Page