An Answer to Anti Social behaviour
Discussion
While I'm formulating my political plans for the future, how about this as a (serious) cost effective measure to curb anti social behaviour. I propose ' The TV control order'
If you are convicted of low level harassment, criminal damage or some other repeat nuisance offence like shoplifting, the court ( society) doesn't want to impose custodial sentences except as a last resort, primarily due to cost. Hence the burgeoning number of people with multiple convictions yet they never see the inside of a cell. Fines don't work either because, as is well documented, if you are already receiving benefits it is really difficult (apparently) for the court to deduct still more money from you. I'm not saying I agree with it, that's how it is though- hence fines of a few hundred pounds being paid off at £5 per week for years.
My idea is a TV control order available as a sentencing option to the courts. The idea is that when convicted the court impose the order on the offender and, crucially on his address. It means quite simply that you aren't allowed to have a tv in your address for the duration of the order. Of course this may impact on your family, they then can't watch a tv either. As Oso would say, it's all part of the plan. What a massive inconvenience for you as mum/dad/sister/brother. Maybe that might mean 'the family' would exert pressure on you to behave? I can see a lot of people being deeply cheesed off if they were deprived of the X factor on a regular basis.
It's surely nobody's human right to watch tv. This would be cheap as well. Cheaper than tagging for example. You would also give Police the power to enter the convicted persons address at any time, without notice to check if a tv was present. If it was, borrowed, brought to the address by someone else, whatever, then it gets seized. No excuses. I can't see people liking the fact the Police could bowl into their address at any time unannounced ( for the duration of the order) either. Who knows what else they may find whilst checking for a tv.
Politicians, feel free to nab this idea. I have many more. They are all gold!
Anyway, would it work?
If you are convicted of low level harassment, criminal damage or some other repeat nuisance offence like shoplifting, the court ( society) doesn't want to impose custodial sentences except as a last resort, primarily due to cost. Hence the burgeoning number of people with multiple convictions yet they never see the inside of a cell. Fines don't work either because, as is well documented, if you are already receiving benefits it is really difficult (apparently) for the court to deduct still more money from you. I'm not saying I agree with it, that's how it is though- hence fines of a few hundred pounds being paid off at £5 per week for years.
My idea is a TV control order available as a sentencing option to the courts. The idea is that when convicted the court impose the order on the offender and, crucially on his address. It means quite simply that you aren't allowed to have a tv in your address for the duration of the order. Of course this may impact on your family, they then can't watch a tv either. As Oso would say, it's all part of the plan. What a massive inconvenience for you as mum/dad/sister/brother. Maybe that might mean 'the family' would exert pressure on you to behave? I can see a lot of people being deeply cheesed off if they were deprived of the X factor on a regular basis.
It's surely nobody's human right to watch tv. This would be cheap as well. Cheaper than tagging for example. You would also give Police the power to enter the convicted persons address at any time, without notice to check if a tv was present. If it was, borrowed, brought to the address by someone else, whatever, then it gets seized. No excuses. I can't see people liking the fact the Police could bowl into their address at any time unannounced ( for the duration of the order) either. Who knows what else they may find whilst checking for a tv.
Politicians, feel free to nab this idea. I have many more. They are all gold!
Anyway, would it work?
highway said:
Anyway, would it work?
No, because the government have no way to centrally turn off the TV signal for ne'er-do-wells.If they teamed up with Virgin and Sky then it could be done, especially since I imagine almost every person being done for antisocial behaviour has either sky or virgin. Clearly this is the very last thing those companies would want to do however.
In short, you're quite insane.
The police would not be able to simply enter a person's house like that due to Article 8 I suspect, there would be a less intrusive method which could be employed.
However, there could be an order issued that prevented Sky/Virgin/BT and so on providing services to the addresses of the offender (If we take your idea) and the state would simply re-imburse the media provider to the tune of whatever the annual payment would have been so they don't lose out (far, far, far less than prison)..... But then again there is always Freeview....
I prefer my idea which is quite simple. If you are convicted three times of anti social behaviour, you are flogged in the public square on a saturday afternoon. Any further offences will result in a greater number of lashes at the next flogging.
However, there could be an order issued that prevented Sky/Virgin/BT and so on providing services to the addresses of the offender (If we take your idea) and the state would simply re-imburse the media provider to the tune of whatever the annual payment would have been so they don't lose out (far, far, far less than prison)..... But then again there is always Freeview....
I prefer my idea which is quite simple. If you are convicted three times of anti social behaviour, you are flogged in the public square on a saturday afternoon. Any further offences will result in a greater number of lashes at the next flogging.
monkey gland said:
No, because the government have no way to centrally turn off the TV signal for ne'er-do-wells.
If they teamed up with Virgin and Sky then it could be done, especially since I imagine almost every person being done for antisocial behaviour has either sky or virgin. Clearly this is the very last thing those companies would want to do however.
In short, you're quite insane.
Don't fight the future!If they teamed up with Virgin and Sky then it could be done, especially since I imagine almost every person being done for antisocial behaviour has either sky or virgin. Clearly this is the very last thing those companies would want to do however.
In short, you're quite insane.
monkey gland said:
No, because the government have no way to centrally turn off the TV signal for ne'er-do-wells.
If they teamed up with Virgin and Sky then it could be done, especially since I imagine almost every person being done for antisocial behaviour has either sky or virgin. Clearly this is the very last thing those companies would want to do however.
In short, you're quite insane.
Don't fight the future!If they teamed up with Virgin and Sky then it could be done, especially since I imagine almost every person being done for antisocial behaviour has either sky or virgin. Clearly this is the very last thing those companies would want to do however.
In short, you're quite insane.
s in jailJasandjules said:
I prefer my idea which is quite simple. If you are convicted three times of anti social behaviour, you are flogged in the public square on a saturday afternoon. Any further offences will result in a greater number of lashes at the next flogging.
I rather like that idea. But it must be a quiet flogging; any squealing / swearing / wriggling / resisting by either the convicted or his / her friends or family results in prolongation of floggery.Did no-one read the OP?
He didn't say that it required getting Sky or Virgin invloved or worries about Freeview - he said no TV receivers in the house period. Backed up by the possibility of Police random checks (or more cost effectively, TV licensing or PCSo checks)
I'm gonna go against the grain of the thread and say I think this might actually be a good idea. A lot of scrotes sit indoors all day in front of J Kyle and then go out at night to cause trouble / thieve.
It's not as good as my plan to bring back National Service though when I'm in power
He didn't say that it required getting Sky or Virgin invloved or worries about Freeview - he said no TV receivers in the house period. Backed up by the possibility of Police random checks (or more cost effectively, TV licensing or PCSo checks)
I'm gonna go against the grain of the thread and say I think this might actually be a good idea. A lot of scrotes sit indoors all day in front of J Kyle and then go out at night to cause trouble / thieve.
It's not as good as my plan to bring back National Service though when I'm in power
Digger said:
They'll only get a laptop and use that instead. Easy to hide from the 'authorities'.
So if there was a surprise knock at your door one night for a house search, you reckon you could easily and quickly hide a laptop so it couldn't be found?These guys are trained to find tiny packets of drugs extremely cleverly concealed in houses, and they usually do so - I think they might be able to find a laptop, no?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff