Bring back flogging!
Discussion
Lord Irvine, the Lord Chancellor, has basically said that we shouldn't imprison burglars, but should instead give them a light slap on the wrists and tell them not to be so naughty next time. 
I hardly have the energy to start another debate on what a piss pot this country is turning into, as I know we've debated it to bits over the past couple of years, but this and also the news that school detention may soon be a thing of the past as it violates the child's Human Rights just leave me gasping in astonishment.
The lunatics have taken over the asylum. God help us.
Full article reproduced below:
I hardly have the energy to start another debate on what a piss pot this country is turning into, as I know we've debated it to bits over the past couple of years, but this and also the news that school detention may soon be a thing of the past as it violates the child's Human Rights just leave me gasping in astonishment.
The lunatics have taken over the asylum. God help us.
Full article reproduced below:
Source: Telegraph
The public sees nothing wrong in burglars escaping jail, even for their second offences, Lord Irvine, the Lord Chancellor, claimed yesterday.
Supporting the lenient approach prescribed last month by Lord Woolf, the Lord Chief Justice, he said: "I don't accept that people are disturbed at first-time burglars or even second-time burglars - where there are no aggravated elements in the burglary - not going to prison."
Asked about Lord Woolf's ruling, in a guideline judgment, that courts should impose non-custodial sentences on first-time, "standard domestic" burglars, Lord Irvine said: "I have no difficulty in agreeing with the Lord Chief Justice on that."
He insisted in a BBC interview that people had less faith in imprisonment than tabloid newspapers suggested. "In other words, I think that people are more worldly-wise, better informed, than some of the critics of the Lord Chief Justice credit."
In an attempt to put the Court of Appeal's recent burglary guidelines in context, the Lord Chancellor claimed that Lord Woolf and the other judges sitting with him had "sanctioned very substantial sentences of imprisonment for the three burglars whose appeals were in front of them", and that this had been "largely ignored".
In fact, there were two burglars before the court in the appeal decided just before Christmas and both had their sentences cut.
William McInerney, 22, who had 19 previous convictions for a total of 39 offences and who had at one stage asked for 49 other burglaries to be taken into consideration, had his five-year sentence reduced to 3.5 years.
Stephen Keating, 33, with 12 previous convictions for which he had served two terms of imprisonment, had a four-year sentence reduced to three years.
His probation officer said he had "clearly poor coping mechanisms for his offending" but did not assess him as presenting a serious risk of harm to the public.
Lord Irvine's interview with the BBC Radio 4 Today programme had been planned before the guideline judgment on Dec 19 and was recorded last week.
He asked rhetorically whether people were better protected "by ever-increasing jail sentences of imprisonment with all the cost for the state that entails - or are they to be better protected by giving a vigorous programme of community service a chance?
"The general principle must be that you keep people out of prison if at all possible and of course that reflects the fact that we have an insupportable prison population of about 72,000. The more crowded prisons become the less able they are to educate and to deal with the causes of crime."
Lord Irvine is the first Cabinet minister to back the Court of Appeal's burglary guidelines. Lawyers had thought Lord Woolf was being "hung out to dry" by the Government despite espousing its policy.
But the Lord Chancellor reminded his audience that he had joined forces with the Home Secretary and the Attorney General in November "in support of generalised statements by the Lord Chief Justice that people should be sent to prison only as a last resort and always for no longer than necessary.
The evidence is that community sentences are better at preventing people from reconvicting".
Bill Cash, the Tory MP who shadows Lord Irvine's department in the Commons, called on the home affairs committee to examine how the burglary guidelines would operate in practice. "These guidelines have not been debated in Parliament. They concern the safety of the public and their confidence in the judicial system," he said.
Mr Cash pointed out that someone breaking into a house could not be sure there was nobody at home. "These guidelines do not provide a sufficient deterrent in such cases."
Sir David Calvert-Smith, QC, the Director of Public Prosecutions, said the guidelines would not discourage the Crown Prosecution Service from bringing cases to court.
"Burglary is still sufficiently serious to prosecute, even if it leads to a community punishment." The only difference he saw was that more burglars would be tried by magistrates so fewer cases would be dealt with in the Crown Court, which has heavier sentencing powers.
Two things struck me when I heard this maniac on R4 yesterday..
1) The guy is on a planet entirely unrelated to the one we all inhabit.
2) This guy and Billy Liar are bosom buddies and this guy has massive influence.
If PH had a signature feature, mine would currently read "Get the Rifle. We're being Fcuked."
1) The guy is on a planet entirely unrelated to the one we all inhabit.
2) This guy and Billy Liar are bosom buddies and this guy has massive influence.
If PH had a signature feature, mine would currently read "Get the Rifle. We're being Fcuked."
Which f
The public sees nothing wrong in burglars escaping jail, even for their second offences, Lord Irvine, the Lord Chancellor, claimed yesterday.
g public were these then 
Carzee, couldn't agree more mate
I'm off to burgle Billy Liars house, disrupt his kids education and shop him for drink driving, before leaving some skag needles on his f
g door step and see how he fg likes itLord Irvines son is currently in an American jail on stalking charges. Perhaps he is going a bit gooey thinking of son number 1 being the soap boy in the shower and cuddling up to Mr Big at night!
Comments about the skag needles, yep lets do it. I have had the misfortune of having an unofficial lodger outside my office in the porch. Alarm constantly being triggered, and having to come down and face smack heads turds and used needles along with a collection of empty bottles is not funny.
Police will do **** all (again), due to the fact it is a bell only alarm and no break in has occurred.
Comments about the skag needles, yep lets do it. I have had the misfortune of having an unofficial lodger outside my office in the porch. Alarm constantly being triggered, and having to come down and face smack heads turds and used needles along with a collection of empty bottles is not funny.
Police will do **** all (again), due to the fact it is a bell only alarm and no break in has occurred.
He asked rhetorically whether people were better protected "by ever-increasing jail sentences of imprisonment with all the cost for the state that entails - or are they to be better protected by giving a vigorous programme of community service a chance?
If the vigorous programme includes them wearing orange overalls and cleaning ditches etc for eighty hours a week I'm all for it. That would deter more people than a stay in some jumped up holiday camp, with TV, video games and the like all provided at my expense.
If the vigorous programme is making old dears cups of tea, and casing the next job, lets fry the scumbags and stop worrying.
We were burgled a few years ago - very seriously indeed. I wish Lord Irvine could undergo the same experience - as things stand his remarks are pure unadulterated drivel. In the article I read he was quoted as saying that the emotioinal trauma suffered by burglary victims was the worst aspect of the crime, and that the thought of strangers 'invading' householders' privacy was unbearable.
Trauma be buggered, in spades, Lord Irvine. The public can walk through my house whenever they like free of charge, provided they wipe their feet on the doormat.
But they may not uplift my possessions while doing so. My wife and I are not given to trauma, but by God we were bloody angry, and still are.
Forgive the language, but I feel it is more than justified in this instance. I have written to the man, politely, but do not expect my letter to be read.
Democracy, innit?
my house got burgled when i was away at college.
i live on my own and do get a bit twitchy from time to time - my conservatory creaks and groans like a good 'un.
i have 2 4-cell maglites, one next to my bed, the other used for seeing in the dark.
if anyone ever enters my house i have a feeling i know what will ' just come to hand '
point being tho' that i am physically fit and able to defend myself but this doesn't stop me getting the jitters - what must this be like for the cotton buds who have been burgled and who really couldn't protect themselves?
given the number of crimes that these guys commit ( i've heard this time and time again ) surely putting a routine burglar away must reduce the figures massively in a localised area for quite some time?
sigh.
i live on my own and do get a bit twitchy from time to time - my conservatory creaks and groans like a good 'un.
i have 2 4-cell maglites, one next to my bed, the other used for seeing in the dark.
if anyone ever enters my house i have a feeling i know what will ' just come to hand '
point being tho' that i am physically fit and able to defend myself but this doesn't stop me getting the jitters - what must this be like for the cotton buds who have been burgled and who really couldn't protect themselves?
given the number of crimes that these guys commit ( i've heard this time and time again ) surely putting a routine burglar away must reduce the figures massively in a localised area for quite some time?
sigh.
We have 90,000 people behind bars in this country, we also have a huge shortfall in council services at the nastier end of the spectrum. Bin men, road workers, sewage workers etc.
Put 'em to work until they have earned an equivalent sum, at 50p per hour, to pay back all they have ever been convicted of stealing...
Matt.
Put 'em to work until they have earned an equivalent sum, at 50p per hour, to pay back all they have ever been convicted of stealing...
Matt.
hmmmmm i must say this is all a bit unnerving.
Blunkett issuing statements regarding mandatory 5 year sentences for carrying guns, and within a couple of days doing a u-turn because the judges threatened to rebel against a lack of flexibility for exceptional cases.
And now this-Blair's former head of chambers and buddy, in the top legal position, unelected of course, jobs for the boys-nooooo,-suggesting the public, you and i, don't beleive burglars should go to jail. Didn't ask me or any one i know. As usual a politician using GENERALISATION to justify a off-the-cuff policy. Of course the reality is Irvine doesn't want the prison population to increase because of a lack of space and no doubt due to the fact bulging prisons just don't make good PR for a hard-on-crime government.
It's time to listen to what iron maiden said and "run to the hills".
Blunkett issuing statements regarding mandatory 5 year sentences for carrying guns, and within a couple of days doing a u-turn because the judges threatened to rebel against a lack of flexibility for exceptional cases.
And now this-Blair's former head of chambers and buddy, in the top legal position, unelected of course, jobs for the boys-nooooo,-suggesting the public, you and i, don't beleive burglars should go to jail. Didn't ask me or any one i know. As usual a politician using GENERALISATION to justify a off-the-cuff policy. Of course the reality is Irvine doesn't want the prison population to increase because of a lack of space and no doubt due to the fact bulging prisons just don't make good PR for a hard-on-crime government.
It's time to listen to what iron maiden said and "run to the hills".
I agree with Lord Irvine (for once in my life) BUT before you all scream at me let me explain.
1. Our prisons are already way over crowded and this costs a fortune that could be spent on things like the NHS
2.Prisons don't really do any good to 1st time offenders. They only get taught better ways to steal.
3. Prison doesn't give any help if they are drug addicts.
However, the current system doesn't allow for harsh non-custodial sentences. A few hours community service means nothing to someone who's unemployed and steals at night.
There need to be some extreme measures of months or even years of community labour used in conjunction with curfews. All backed up with counselling and drug re-hab services.
This may sound too liberal for some of you but I really do feel that alot of the people need help to get out of trap they are in that is caused by poverty, physical abuse, drug abuse and boredom. I do not condone light sentences, I just feel the current system of slapping them in jail is failing and we need to find a way to give a real punishment but also trying to stop them re-offending.
What would you prefer? 1. Finding out that the person who burgled your house was in a nice cosy prison for 3 months. OR 2. Finding out that the person who burgled your house was doing 3 months hard graft fixing roads, not allowed out of his house except to do this, and being given help to stop them doing it again?
Jail should always be used if the person posses any sort of physical danger to the public.
1. Our prisons are already way over crowded and this costs a fortune that could be spent on things like the NHS
2.Prisons don't really do any good to 1st time offenders. They only get taught better ways to steal.
3. Prison doesn't give any help if they are drug addicts.
However, the current system doesn't allow for harsh non-custodial sentences. A few hours community service means nothing to someone who's unemployed and steals at night.
There need to be some extreme measures of months or even years of community labour used in conjunction with curfews. All backed up with counselling and drug re-hab services.
This may sound too liberal for some of you but I really do feel that alot of the people need help to get out of trap they are in that is caused by poverty, physical abuse, drug abuse and boredom. I do not condone light sentences, I just feel the current system of slapping them in jail is failing and we need to find a way to give a real punishment but also trying to stop them re-offending.
What would you prefer? 1. Finding out that the person who burgled your house was in a nice cosy prison for 3 months. OR 2. Finding out that the person who burgled your house was doing 3 months hard graft fixing roads, not allowed out of his house except to do this, and being given help to stop them doing it again?
Jail should always be used if the person posses any sort of physical danger to the public.
McNab said:
In the article I read he was quoted as saying that the emotioinal trauma suffered by burglary victims was the worst aspect of the crime, and that the thought of strangers 'invading' householders' privacy was unbearable.
Trauma be buggered, in spades, Lord Irvine. The public can walk through my house whenever they like free of charge, provided they wipe their feet on the doormat.
But they may not uplift my possessions while doing so. My wife and I are not given to trauma, but by God we were bloody angry, and still are.
Forgive the language, but I feel it is more than justified in this instance. I have written to the man, politely, but do not expect my letter to be read.
Democracy, innit?
Absolutely right Ian. My house was turned over the night before I moved in, we had been renovating for about four months. Total loss about £2.5K, so not bad I suppose. It is the personal invasion that worries us more, knowing a bunch of thieving scrotes had been in my house, doing god knows what.
BTW the loss was uninsured because the insurance company refuses to cover during un-lived in renovation work. Also the alarm was not yet connected due to a mistake by the electrician so no immediate response from the security company. The police reckoned they had been in the house for an hour or so.
There is this pervading ideal in current society that reformation and rehabilitation should be a major part of the justice system not just punishment. Why? It isn't in most of the world and for the entirety bar 30 years of our own history it hasn't.
It seems extremely ambitious of the justice system, and its associated ancillary services, to beleive that the product of a disadvanted, abusive upbringing can be cured with a little patience and TLC. Some can, but l would say most cannot. Too late! There aren't enough resources to 'repair' all such people, they are simply dysfunctional.
Akin to a miscast tool: If you bought a spanner and it had a filled jaw due to miscasting, would you:
a) sculpt and rework it into a useful item.
b) throw it away and buy another. Plop! back in the furnace with you.
No people aren't tools to be thrown away or are they. The current scenarios seem to represent a deep angst and self blame suffered (actual or implied somehow) by society. We all expected (by whom?) to carry some guilt for those we have failed etc...
Instead, I propose that we just accept that our society isn't perfect, people aren't at all perfect, and remove those failures (or those we have failed depending on how you want to look at it). We should then concentrate on making society more fit for future generations so we don't keep producing more problem-ites. If you consider it, by trying to reform offenders we are only tackling a symptom not the cause(s).
So build loads of prisons, chuck 'em in until there aren't any more who want to go in. Make it harsh and punitive. Fear has always worked, it is the foundation of of our base instincts. Make them feel Stockholm syndrom towards society so when they come out they adore being free. At some point the message might even get across that making an effort to change is actually worth pursuing.
Oh and remove the automatic right to breed and to vote...
erm maybe save that for another time.
It seems extremely ambitious of the justice system, and its associated ancillary services, to beleive that the product of a disadvanted, abusive upbringing can be cured with a little patience and TLC. Some can, but l would say most cannot. Too late! There aren't enough resources to 'repair' all such people, they are simply dysfunctional.
Akin to a miscast tool: If you bought a spanner and it had a filled jaw due to miscasting, would you:
a) sculpt and rework it into a useful item.
b) throw it away and buy another. Plop! back in the furnace with you.
No people aren't tools to be thrown away or are they. The current scenarios seem to represent a deep angst and self blame suffered (actual or implied somehow) by society. We all expected (by whom?) to carry some guilt for those we have failed etc...
Instead, I propose that we just accept that our society isn't perfect, people aren't at all perfect, and remove those failures (or those we have failed depending on how you want to look at it). We should then concentrate on making society more fit for future generations so we don't keep producing more problem-ites. If you consider it, by trying to reform offenders we are only tackling a symptom not the cause(s).
So build loads of prisons, chuck 'em in until there aren't any more who want to go in. Make it harsh and punitive. Fear has always worked, it is the foundation of of our base instincts. Make them feel Stockholm syndrom towards society so when they come out they adore being free. At some point the message might even get across that making an effort to change is actually worth pursuing.
Oh and remove the automatic right to breed and to vote...
erm maybe save that for another time. 
Prison should be a place that you DO NOT WANT TO BE IN!!!
It should strike fear into the heart of any sane person.
If you believe otherwise, then where is the deterrant that is required to protect society from those who have (for whatever reason) a lower sense of personal morals and self control than that which society deems to be a requirement for membership.
If, by the age of 16, a person has a belief that thieving etc is an acceptable way of life, then solitary confinement and/or chain gangs has to be the alternative lifestyle that society can offer them.
Simple.
Lord Wolff and his bum-chums can go swing - no-one I have ever met has thought that a theiving scrote, once caught and found guilty, should be released with no punishment.
****in idiots with no sense at all.
It should strike fear into the heart of any sane person.
If you believe otherwise, then where is the deterrant that is required to protect society from those who have (for whatever reason) a lower sense of personal morals and self control than that which society deems to be a requirement for membership.
If, by the age of 16, a person has a belief that thieving etc is an acceptable way of life, then solitary confinement and/or chain gangs has to be the alternative lifestyle that society can offer them.
Simple.
Lord Wolff and his bum-chums can go swing - no-one I have ever met has thought that a theiving scrote, once caught and found guilty, should be released with no punishment.
****in idiots with no sense at all.
Gassing Station | General Gassing [Archive] | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff