RE: Driving Force

[rpguk]

I Hate to say this (seeing as I was the person who kicked up a fuss initially) but after that explaination it actually sounds like a pretty good idea, so long as the emphasis is more on being a good thing for non - offenders then rewarding offenders.

Are you planning on trying to sort out some sort of deals with insurance companies? Because otherwise there is the problem that you will get little bastards thieving to pay the huge premiums that would normally apply.

Lastly where in the UK are you planning on running the scheme?

(Oh and if anyone plans on dumping a cerbera then send me an e-mail first )

[nonegreen]

quote:
Quote:
tell them to stop living off the rest of society the parasites.

thes is the view that has made society what it is to day.
and caused the problems.


Outlaw, explain why my view has caused the problem. This view (that we should work as a society and that you work to earn your keep) has been held for hundreds of years. Recently the attitude seems to be that the rest of society should feel sorry for people who would rather take what they want from someone else. That somehow it's our fault that the do it. Does nobody take responsibility for their own or their kids actions anymore?
I fully agree with a society which subsidises those who don't have the means to work. What I don't agree with is that some little shit can come along, break into my car, thrash the nuts off it to the point where it is an insurance write off then tell me it's my attitude which is to blame.
Stop blaming society for your own actions. YOU are responsible for your own actions.

I think what you are describing is how it should be Mark not how it really is. For hundreds of years in this feudal society we, the majority have kept a few idle parasites in the lap of luxury. When the British Empire was at its height half the country were starving and not for lack of effort, or any unwillingness to contribute. The last remnants of this remain in the form, of the ultimate parasites, the royal family.

Because the welfare state has created the illusion that all is fair in our society it is easy to delude ourselves that this is the case. Just look at the recession of the 1920's, the general strike. Aristocrats buying guns in case there was a revolution? The blood bath that would have eventually been created had welfare benefits not been introduced would make our little moans about todays society seem a bit lame.

[octane junkie]

This is an interesting discussion with valid points on all sides - but I'm still on the fence (sitting, that is, not movin' dodgy Rolex's).

Has anyone seen 'Enemy at the Gate' with Jude Law, and Bob Hoskins? So, Hoskins is Kruschev right? and in the middle of the battle for Stalingrad, while he's laying into his Officers for not shooting their own grunts when they run away from certain death, he asks "does anybody here have any ideas????" and this spin doctor (sorry Political Officer) pipes up with "Yes, Comrade General Kruschev. Give them Hope".

Remind you of anyone?........ kind of topical, I thought...

[matthewh]

Just finished reading an article in the Economist (groan) discussing the shortcomings of these kind of programmes. Basically the difference between such a project and, say, a new medicine is that the medicine needs to go through a long and pretty exhaustive set of trials (usually double blind) over the course of several years whereas the social project needs, err, well, no testing whatsoever. Basically a social scientist with a bee in their bonnet and the right political connections can setup a project which has no proven track record. In effect we the tax payers are the guinea pigs for these boys (post)doctoral theses.

The Economist mentions a few similar projects (mainly in America) whose benefits to the local population where measured by independant researchers after a few years. One, termed 'Scared Straight", involved young delinquents being shown what it is like in jail through contact with inmates. The result, an increase in the youth reoffending rates which was not directly correlated with the general increase in crime figures. A second project involved lots of free (pre driving test) youth driver training - it pushed local accidents rates up, as more young drivers qualified for their licences first (or second) time around and promptly forgot all their training and went backstreet racing.

It seems to me that the 'Driving Force' scheme nicely unifies these two tried and rejected ideas.

What does it take for our political masters to start thinking that instead of cajoling criminals into becoming law-abiding citizens with free gifts and promises it might be worth their while to stop dumping the consequences on the rest of us?

[XPLOD]

I found Outlaw's comments interesting. It is true that in some forces "panda" drivers have no driver training. Such Officers are not allowed to engage in pursuits. They are however, usually entitled to put a blue light on to stop a vehicle. This raises the question of at what point does a "fail to stop" become a pursuit? When I was a Police Officer, I once "pursued" a stolen milk float!
My main point is that the pondlife that go out nicking cars, do not normally do so with the intention of going for a sedate drive one summers afternoon. They nick a car for the buzz of tearing around like a total idiot, with no regard for the lives of anyone else, be they motorists, mothers, children, babies etc... It is my experience, that what attracts a Police Officer to a stolen car is the manner in which it is being driven, i.e. badly. I'm not dead against some of these rehabilitation schemes. Stats show that they usually have better rates for re-offending than sending people to prison. Seeing things from a victims perspective is often new to the little scrotes, and can often have a sobering effect.

[outlaw]

quote:
I found Outlaw's comments interesting. It is true that in some forces "panda" drivers have no driver training. Such Officers are not allowed to engage in pursuits. They are however, usually entitled to put a blue light on to stop a vehicle. This raises the question of at what point does a "fail to stop" become a pursuit? When I was a Police Officer, I once "pursued" a stolen milk float!
My main point is that the pondlife that go out nicking cars, do not normally do so with the intention of going for a sedate drive one summers afternoon. They nick a car for the buzz of tearing around like a total idiot, with no regard for the lives of anyone else, be they motorists, mothers, children, babies etc... It is my experience, that what attracts a Police Officer to a stolen car is the manner in which it is being driven, i.e. badly. I'm not dead against some of these rehabilitation schemes. Stats show that they usually have better rates for re-offending than sending people to prison. Seeing things from a victims perspective is often new to the little scrotes, and can often have a sobering effect.

my experience, that what attracts a Police Officer to a stolen car is the manner in which it is being driven, i.e. badly.

I can say that is often true.
but chacing them aint going to make them drive better
is it

folowing at a safe distence would be far safer.

instead of 5 inches off there bumper till they
red mist and crash and burn

as is done a hell of a lot.

I could get to lands end and back,in a nicked motor with out worrying about the plod.


but never could get out of my own road a a bike that was all legal when I was a kid with out getting a pull strange that one.

that may be the rules not to give chase in a panda
but i see em do it very often.

I aways did wounder how they thort they would catch a hight performance car with a nova panda.
unless it a kid that crashs it at the first bend

Im still trying to find the twat in the panda that knocked my wing mirror off while i was sitting at a roundabout.



>> Edited by outlaw on Tuesday 5th March 19:03

[spyder]

To rpquk
re:your response 2nd march.

One thing I want to point out is we are talking of small engined less powerful motors, not us musclecars etc. However your thoughts on insurance might be worthy of looking into to get the costs down.

I intend to do this in Nottinghamshire but if succesful it could go national.....franchised around the country.

This scheme actually saves money as I said it will be funded(eventually) by eurofunding, the nat lottery community fund etc. AS far as Nottinghamshire is concerned the last full year cost them £13 million and this is set to rise steeply and I envisage cutting their bill by approx 20-30 percent but if I only manage 10% it saves council taxpayers £1.3 million.
Plus custodial sentences costs well over a £1000 a week
so lets say I deal with just 50 0ffenders a year and they spent say 4 months in care that would make a saving of £875,000 pa......thats a saving of an absolute minimum of £2 million a year for this area but in reality is likely to be more like 3 times this.
so this is saving you all money and may contribute to lowering insurance rates.

however the most important thing is saving lives!

thank you all for your comments, for and against

If any of you interested in helping e-mail me at [e-mail]

bye all

Tom

[nubbin]

If you're going to give young kids hope, it has to apply to all young kids, not just the little shits who steal cars. Decent honest kids come from shitty backgrounds, as well, and should be rewarded for being decent. I came from a very poor background,but I never stole cars - I worked hard at school and went to university to become a doctor - and if any kid wants to try to take ANYTHING away from me, that I've earned through my own hard work, he'd better watch out, because I will kill him if he tries anything. I saw some of the wasters at my school get to go on day trips to printing works, tank museums etc., whilst I sat in a sweaty classroom reading Shakespeare. Virtue is NOT it's own reward - I would like a free hand-out for being good, O.K?

By all means give these kids hope - I have returned to my roots and work in a pit village full of just these types of kids, and there are the usual good and bad ones. Let them all try a scheme like this, but one failure, one break of the rules, and lock them up, because they will never be of any use to society - and I will pay my taxes in order to keep the bad ones out of society, and away from the folks who are trying.

Sorry - bit of a rant, but I'm stopping now, even though this does not represent the sum of my thoughts on the matter.

[smeagol]

Spyder how big is this scheme going to be in Notingham. ie if the scheme is open to all not just offenders, then have you publicised this in all schools in a pilot area or is it the usual "hogwash". I am still in the view that "saving money by rewarding crime" is a fast route to "losing more money". I would be interested in the actual proprtion of non-offenders and offenders that get accepted on the course. I would suspect that the offenders get "first dibs" (and hence rewarding crime).

May I also suggest another area of interviews as well as victims of accidents (remember most teenagers think they are immortal) why not get them to talk to people who have had their car stolen and how its affected their life. I for one, was devasted when I had saved for 7 years worked my @rse off to buy a Lotus then some B'std decided to try and steal it (vandalising it in the process). My next door neighbour with 3 kids was equally distraught as their only reasonable form of transport was stolen.

I'm interested in your response.

[Mark Benson]

Spyder, in a similar vein to smeagol, I too would be interested to see the proportion of law-breakers to law-abiders on your scheme. Also, I'd like to know how many places you intend to offer, and how the candidates will be chosen as I'm sure that in a city the size of Nottingham a scheme such as yours will be oversubscribed several times over if publicised.