|
Lost_BMW
10,839 posts
46 months
|
andymadmak said: No need for the personal attack. By starting in that way you immediately devalue the points you seek to make.
You paint a very rosey picture of tripping down (sic) to your local Tesco to pick up your latest fix. You assume it will be cheaper. You assume that the inherent costs of a legalised supply chain will not impact adversely on the ability to supply the drug cheaper. You assume that the illegal traders will not find ways to combat this. You assume that by making it cheaper,(if that does indeed prove to be the case) that suddenly the addicts will be able to afford this new price without recourse to criminal activity. Lots of assumptions there.
The experience of the currently available legal highs (alchohol, tobacco) would appear to contradict your assumptions somewhat. What is the % of cigarettes sold in the UK that is believed to be black market? I believe I read somewhere recently that it's as much as 25%? And even if all your assumptions were proved to be correct (as well they might be) how long before someone notices that drugs are indeed harmful, and proposes a "minimum price per unit of drug" .. All your "good works" would be undone in an instant..
Sorry to all about the thread hijack. Lets move this to another thread if you want to debate further.
edited for fat finger syndrome! No I don't. Nonsense. The points still stand. Oh, and you have fat fingers...
|
|
|
D900SP
434 posts
53 months
|
As someone posted previously, Cameron is not a failure but like the previous PM and the next one, is simply not a leader.
Part of the problem is that even if a leader existed (good luck on that one) and was elected into the PM position, would the PM and Cabinet be strong enough to actually do anything?
I doubt it and we will have the same discussion again and again as self-interest and extremists, irrelevant policies and lack of understanding that real changes are necessary, seem to rule the day.
|
|
|
10 Pence Short
27,896 posts
87 months
|
I would make the following argument:
Between 1997 and 2010, the press enjoyed a closer relationship with Government and agencies of it than it ever had before. From Alistair Campbell at the top, the attitude filtered down that it was right (and necessary) to shmoose the press beyond what had ever gone before.
The Freedom of Information Act, the Data Protection Act et al, all make access or at least gathering information about public performance easier than ever before.
Between where we were in '97 and today, there is exponentially more importance placed on 'instant news', the proliferation of the internet, instant scrutiny and resultant ripples from every political action and reaction.
In other words, the balance of power has swung further in the direction of then media than it ever was last time then Tories were in power.
Even accepting the above, it goes to show how inept at dealing with the media the last Tory government was. In the capabilities of current times, it would be slaughtered before a year was out.
So when I see stories about Ministers disagreeing, or emails having gone between they or their advisors and corporations, I ask myself; what negative effect is there in what they've done. How does it apply in relation to the quality of the job they're doing for the country? Does it make me think they're incapable of doing the job I may have voted for them to do?
I don't think Cameron or the Coalition are as good at handling the press as Tony Blair and Alistair Campbell were. I don't think their judgement in relation to it is anywhere near, either. What I do think, is that the Coalition is doing well at a horrendously difficult, thankless task of telling this country and its voters, frankly, "you can't afford, we can't afford, to live how we did".
In years to come, I am confident we will look back on this term of government as one who steadied a sinking ship, got it back to port and set in motion a top level refit. Whether it'll be the one to captain the next voyage might not be in their hands, but I've seen nothing yet that would prevent me from giving them the chance.
|
|
|
Oilchange
2,857 posts
130 months
|
Good post. It's all well and good to say the new government haven't brought us back to instant prosperity but then we are reliant on a broken Europe for a large proportion of our Clipper ship trade to help pay off our Labour induced debt anchor. And Europe is largely f  kED. Like you said Cameron is doing, imo, a good job considering he has to deal with a coalition alongside Libdems. I even think the last budget wasn't a bad one either and some of the ideas were Libdem ones. What have the opposition got to throw at Cameron except pasties! Really... 
|
|
|
0a
8,528 posts
64 months
|
|
|
Norfolkit
806 posts
60 months
|
CommanderJameson said: I find it staggering that if it were this simple, no-one has yet done it.
.
You are Cameron so f k off, it is that simple, but it doesn't fit with your quasi leftie intellectual, media luvvie, hug a hoodie f king approach. f k off and let a Tory have a go.
|
|
|
AJS-
10,095 posts
106 months
|
CommanderJameson said: I find it staggering that if it were this simple, no-one has yet done it.
I suspect that you'll find it's a little* bit more complicated than that. For example, will you accept another penny or two on income tax to pay for all the prisons? Because I wouldn't, and I would vote accordingly.
I'd accept a cut in JSA.
|
|
|
turbobloke
55,667 posts
130 months
|
"For example, will you accept another penny or two on income tax to pay for all the prisons?"Yes it would be well worth the small reduction in take-home. The increase in quality of life in having all or most of the known 120,000 repeat offending career criminals inside at any one time rather than having some on the streets because there are only 90,000 or so spaces inside would alone make the small loss of disposble worthwhile. Take a look at one illustration and consider the potential national picture in the same circumstances
|
|
|
AndrewW-G
11,968 posts
87 months
|
Not forgetting, that any increase in income tax, to cover the increased costs of the prison service, could be offset at a service user level, by prisons taking on more paying work (I've always thought the old US model of number plate manufacturing, would be a win win in the UK, not only employing prisoners, but also removing the potential for illegal number plates) and also at the taxpayer level, with the reduced costs / impact of crime.
|
|
|
Oilchange
2,857 posts
130 months
|
I reckon utilising the American tradition of chain gangs tidying litter at the side of the road, monitored by some mirror sunglassed and humourless gentlemen brandishing pump actions.
'You can run kid...'
|
|
|
andyroo
2,227 posts
80 months
|
10 Pence Short said: I would make the following argument:
Between 1997 and 2010, the press enjoyed a closer relationship with Government and agencies of it than it ever had before. From Alistair Campbell at the top, the attitude filtered down that it was right (and necessary) to shmoose the press beyond what had ever gone before.
The Freedom of Information Act, the Data Protection Act et al, all make access or at least gathering information about public performance easier than ever before.
Between where we were in '97 and today, there is exponentially more importance placed on 'instant news', the proliferation of the internet, instant scrutiny and resultant ripples from every political action and reaction.
In other words, the balance of power has swung further in the direction of then media than it ever was last time then Tories were in power.
Even accepting the above, it goes to show how inept at dealing with the media the last Tory government was. In the capabilities of current times, it would be slaughtered before a year was out.
So when I see stories about Ministers disagreeing, or emails having gone between they or their advisors and corporations, I ask myself; what negative effect is there in what they've done. How does it apply in relation to the quality of the job they're doing for the country? Does it make me think they're incapable of doing the job I may have voted for them to do?
I don't think Cameron or the Coalition are as good at handling the press as Tony Blair and Alistair Campbell were. I don't think their judgement in relation to it is anywhere near, either. What I do think, is that the Coalition is doing well at a horrendously difficult, thankless task of telling this country and its voters, frankly, "you can't afford, we can't afford, to live how we did".
In years to come, I am confident we will look back on this term of government as one who steadied a sinking ship, got it back to port and set in motion a top level refit. Whether it'll be the one to captain the next voyage might not be in their hands, but I've seen nothing yet that would prevent me from giving them the chance. Good post. The idea that people expect thirteen years of bad judgement, ridiculous decisions and a recession to be fixed in two years is just plain ridiculous. If anything, it highlights the 'i want it now' attitude that was firmly instilled into society between '97 and '10. I really don't get how people think there is any other way to come out of debt that to cut spending. The dumb thing is that, like you say, the Tories are driving a slow, stable and steady course to recovery, only to be voted out at the end of it. I think there is a serious problem with a voting system that can only see four years into the future. It's ludicrous.
|
|
|
Derek Smith
16,215 posts
118 months
|
Lost_BMW said: You're right of course, we could just hate and mistrust anyone "not from round these parts" and we have more than enough of our own home grown (or 2nd, 3rd etc. generation) scum to deal with. So, I'd like to offer a solution - a bit radial for some but I'm pretty sure it would reduce the number of criminals and rates of offending. One: we lock up anyone guilty of crimes like mugging, distraction robberies, burglary etc. for a much longer time, using ex army bases, outdoor encampments, whatever, to get around the "not enough places in the prison system" line. Conditions and 'rights' for such vermin would be adjusted quite significantly in my regime; the inmates would not be running the institution. Education/readiness for future employment would be enforced. BTW - life imprisonment for any prison staff who are found guilty of smuggling drugs etc. into prisoners for bribes. Two: second offence, on release back for a longer, harsher punishment; I quite like the idea of forced labour/chain gangs so we get something back out of the trash as well as teaching them a lesson they might well want to avoid in the future. Three: still not learned? Third offence? Bye bye. Life imprisonment - earning their way as above - to placate the liberals amongst us, or in my less generous mind set; demise. Too many people in the world already, we don't need those who prey on others, ruin lives, cause chaos wherever they go and contribute nothing. I'd simply get rid. So, that's for our 'own'. In addition to that, avoid adding to the problem by far better checks and controls of immigration and well advertised punishments so harsh as to off-put some of the fly-away-holiday-crime-spree or organised 'pitch' gangs now arriving on our shores in, seemingly, larger numbers. Then instant deportation on release and bugger any 'human rights' b ks or agreements that say we can't eject what we don't want in our own land. I await the liberals to tell me why this wouldn't work and wouldn't reduce crime, but at least spare me the bits about 'their' rights; I could give a s t. Oh, I'd also legalise and have state control of drugs to reduce some of the 'need' the underclass have to rob to pay extortionate prices on tiny amounts of cheap-to-produce chemicals. Might kill off a few of the dealers/gangs too... Well I'm a classic liberal. So can I put you out of your misery of anticipation? There are two ways of testing an idea: put it into action and see the result, or - and this way has the attraction of being very cheap, available now and it answers most of your points - look to somehwere else that has tried the method and see what happened there. Most of your ideas have been tried in the USA. Indeed, they have gone further in some cases. Do you consider the USA safer or less safe than this country? For instance, are there more murders there, more robberies, more no-go areas, a bigger underclass, a less fair society and are there areas where life/health insturance would not pay out if you went from your hotel after a 'curfew'? Of course they haven't taken the step of legalising drugs and instead fight a 'war' on them which is even less successful than their Afgan campaign.
|
|
|
AJS-
10,095 posts
106 months
|
Derek Smith said: Well I'm a classic liberal. So can I put you out of your misery of anticipation?
There are two ways of testing an idea: put it into action and see the result, or - and this way has the attraction of being very cheap, available now and it answers most of your points - look to somehwere else that has tried the method and see what happened there.
Most of your ideas have been tried in the USA. Indeed, they have gone further in some cases. Do you consider the USA safer or less safe than this country? For instance, are there more murders there, more robberies, more no-go areas, a bigger underclass, a less fair society and are there areas where life/health insturance would not pay out if you went from your hotel after a 'curfew'?
Of course they haven't taken the step of legalising drugs and instead fight a 'war' on them which is even less successful than their Afgan campaign. USA and Britain is always a totally spurious comparison. The US is a settled country, with massive diversity, and deep divisions across certain boundaries. Britain is a relatively homogeneous country with a settled population and a few pockets of minorities in certain areas. (I know that's not the trendy description of multi-culti Cool Britannia, but it is true.)
|
|
|
Derek Smith
16,215 posts
118 months
|
AJS- said: USA and Britain is always a totally spurious comparison. The US is a settled country, with massive diversity, and deep divisions across certain boundaries.
Britain is a relatively homogeneous country with a settled population and a few pockets of minorities in certain areas.
(I know that's not the trendy description of multi-culti Cool Britannia, but it is true.) I would suggest you can find differences and similarities in all countries. If we look to France for instance we can find a similar country in many ways, it had an imperialistic past, it had colonies and has similar problems of immigration to us. It has 'no go' areas although whether these are worse or better than those in this country is open to argument. We can compare law-enforcement in France with that in this country and we find that the French in prison a lower percentage of the offenders when we do over here without a substantial increase or decrease in the crime rate. Look to Germany and we find a similar percentage of prisoners to France. Depending on whom you talk to Germany is either much more law-abiding than this country or has similar problems. I don't know of many people who reckon that, the problem of east German reunification aside, their problems are worse than ours. Countries which imprison less offenders than us also provide an example to learn from similar to the USA where they imprison considerably more. I remember reading that the USA is the worst Western country with regards to imprisonment. However the next in line was us over here. Whether we have it right now or not is open to argument. My feeling is that we imprison the wrong type of offender. There are other forms of punishment as well. Some countries have used imagination with regards to taking offenders from the public and it seems a shame that we can't try the same without the Daily Mail telling us it will affect house prices. We are the ones who are out of step. We have to ask ourselves why. Further we have two ask ourselves if our system is working. I accept the situation in the USA is not identical to here. The star the country that is. However there is any one country follows the idea of three strikes and that's the end of your freedom and it doesn't seem to work. On top of that if we can't afford and effectively sized police force then I failed to see how we can increase prison numbers by, according to UKIP, a factor of two. It is all very well suggesting that prisons turn into commercial institutions but I feel sure that those companies which manufacture numberplates might have a thing or two to say.
|
|
|
AJS-
10,095 posts
106 months
|
One of several reasons I'm not really a fan of cross country comparisons. However comparing the effects of a law across time can be more useful, and the US is a sort of natural sociological laboratory. According to these figures crime in California has dropped significantly across every category since the 3 strikes rule was introduced in 1994. New York, which doesn't have a 3 strikes rule has not seen the same drop in crime rates. Of course there are other factors at play, but I'm persuaded by the logic of it on several levels. 1) People in prison don't burgle houses. 2) The person who did burgle my house hasn't been caught for it 15 times before, and won't be out burgling my neighbour next week. 3) The idiot who got dragged along on the burglary and got caught knows that you really do go away for a long time if you get caught again. 4) The scum bag who dragged the poor sucker along isn't going to drag the next poor sucker along with him. You worked as a policeman, so tell me if I'm wrong with this, but my impression is that in any given town of say 30,000 people you have maybe 50 bad families and perhaps in there 20 or 30 real ne'er do wells who attract followers and hangers on from time to time who collectively probably make up 80% of the local crime rate. Get these 20 or 30 individuals behind bars for a good long spell and you will see crime fall dramatically.
|
|
|
Mojocvh
12,903 posts
132 months
|
|
|
AndrewW-G
11,968 posts
87 months
|
Mojocvh said: Why? . . . .From the article, it looks like all he's saying, is that he thinks Megrahi's release was wrong and people should remember the 270 innocent people who died.
|
|
|
Derek Smith
16,215 posts
118 months
|
Mojocvh said: We might need help from the USA soon if the Euro fails. Let's be nice to Obama and say pointless things which might make the Americans more amenable to our pleas. Everyone knows Megrahi was innocent of the charges but he's dead now so nothing we say will have any effect on him. Salmond will probably say something along similar lines soon. And wasn't it 290 people died, including 66 children? Oh! No. That was the Airbus that the Americans shot down and the captain who oredered its destruction got a medal. So easy to get the two mixed up. There is another thread on the death of the man who didn't bomb the PanAm flight: http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&a...
|
|
|
Lost_BMW
10,839 posts
46 months
|
Derek Smith said: Well I'm a classic liberal. So can I put you out of your misery of anticipation?
There are two ways of testing an idea: put it into action and see the result, or - and this way has the attraction of being very cheap, available now and it answers most of your points - look to somehwere else that has tried the method and see what happened there.
Most of your ideas have been tried in the USA. Indeed, they have gone further in some cases. Do you consider the USA safer or less safe than this country? For instance, are there more murders there, more robberies, more no-go areas, a bigger underclass, a less fair society and are there areas where life/health insturance would not pay out if you went from your hotel after a 'curfew'?
Of course they haven't taken the step of legalising drugs and instead fight a 'war' on them which is even less successful than their Afgan campaign. No, they haven't done fully, or anywhere near, what I suggested - and, given I was mollycoddling the sensibilities of the timid, let alone what I'd really do, going further of course, if unhindered by having to accomodate you 'liberals'! The American judicial system is about as wishy washy, weak and failed as ours. Despite which, from what I've read and heard, including from Americans (though I await your posting of some statistical data you'll no doubt trawl for to refute this?) some towns and cities in the US don't have nearly the level per capita of street crime, physical assaults or burglary as many even small/'quiet' English towns. I've felt safer in some parts of New York at night than I do in many suburbs here, let alone London by gaslight. One argument Americans often use is that the availability of firearms dis-encourages people from risking burglary and spontaneous personal attacks lest the victim respond with "deadly force". Besides at least they have the satisfaction of knowing that at least some (more) of their hardened criminals will never be out or are dead. Notwithstanding that, your point about the larger underclass (breeding criminality) is separate; a political and societal one that stands above the arguments on how to deal with criminals once they've emerged, which the posts above were about. Plus, of course, they haven't tackled the drug issue so have the additional breeding ground their failed 'war against drugs' has provided for more than half a century. If it ain't broke don't fix it... but, it is broke.
|
|
|
Pesty
26,137 posts
126 months
|
Mojocvh said: What did he say about this at the time?
|
|
