Letter from Police
Discussion
R1 Loon said:
Shuvi Tupya said:
It is not being blinkered, it is having a different viewpoint.
if these thieves were locked up after the police arrested them, would that not also help police resources massively?
I understand that a vast majority of crime is commited by a tiny minority. locking them up would mean the police had a 90%? reduction in crime to deal with.
There is more than one way of looking at things.
Or they'd just be replaced by the next bunch of scrotes who were just too slow to get the easy pickings last time.if these thieves were locked up after the police arrested them, would that not also help police resources massively?
I understand that a vast majority of crime is commited by a tiny minority. locking them up would mean the police had a 90%? reduction in crime to deal with.
There is more than one way of looking at things.
Unless you look at removing the easy pickings then there will always be another generation waiting in the wings. Few of the criminals about now are the same ones from 50 years ago and the same will be true in 50 years time.
This discussion is never going to end, you seem hellbent on ignoring the different triggers for crime and obsessing with dealing with the effect rather than the cause. Locking them up is one of many different things that need to be done, simply focussing on this exclusively does no more than fill up prisons and create a nice little vacuum for the next bunch to slip into. No doubt you'd want thes elocked up, then we go through the cycle again.
Of course to succeed in your way, you'd need a limitless cap on resource and members of the public willing to pursue this to the death, sonething you ironically don't seem happy to do, as you only report it to the ploice for a crime reference number.
Lock up the criminals and there will be hundreds of thousands of prison guards required, more jobs, more taxes.
You say you should just remove temptation, how do you explain people breaking into safes?
Theives will figure out a way to take the s
t they need, even if it involves hurting someone to do it.As you say, this conversation could go round and round as both sides have a little merit
Amused2death said:
mph1977 said:
Mastodon2 said:
kiethton said:
All i will say is good on them, to me it shows that they are doing somthing to actually prevent crime which can only help to reduce the number of thefts in the future...whats the problem?
Some people might say the already extremely busy police officers should be prioritising more important tasks than noting who is leaving a sat nav holder / mobile phone / laptop bag etc on display in a car.Perhaps it would have been better for some scrote to nick it and then they would recieve a "Sorry there is nothing we can do" letter?
I know what I'd rather get
Shuvi Tupya said:
R1 Loon said:
Shuvi Tupya said:
It is not being blinkered, it is having a different viewpoint.
if these thieves were locked up after the police arrested them, would that not also help police resources massively?
I understand that a vast majority of crime is commited by a tiny minority. locking them up would mean the police had a 90%? reduction in crime to deal with.
There is more than one way of looking at things.
Or they'd just be replaced by the next bunch of scrotes who were just too slow to get the easy pickings last time.if these thieves were locked up after the police arrested them, would that not also help police resources massively?
I understand that a vast majority of crime is commited by a tiny minority. locking them up would mean the police had a 90%? reduction in crime to deal with.
There is more than one way of looking at things.
Unless you look at removing the easy pickings then there will always be another generation waiting in the wings. Few of the criminals about now are the same ones from 50 years ago and the same will be true in 50 years time.
This discussion is never going to end, you seem hellbent on ignoring the different triggers for crime and obsessing with dealing with the effect rather than the cause. Locking them up is one of many different things that need to be done, simply focussing on this exclusively does no more than fill up prisons and create a nice little vacuum for the next bunch to slip into. No doubt you'd want thes elocked up, then we go through the cycle again.
Of course to succeed in your way, you'd need a limitless cap on resource and members of the public willing to pursue this to the death, sonething you ironically don't seem happy to do, as you only report it to the ploice for a crime reference number.
Lock up the criminals and there will be hundreds of thousands of prison guards required, more jobs, more taxes.
You say you should just remove temptation, how do you explain people breaking into safes?
Theives will figure out a way to take the s
t they need, even if it involves hurting someone to do it.As you say, this conversation could go round and round as both sides have a little merit
Don't see what the problem with this letter is and why people are making such a big fuss about it. Some of the reactions here have been stupidly OTT considering it's just a bloody letter, in which the police were trying to be helpful at that.
Patronising and condescending? I'm sure you will get over it..
Patronising and condescending? I'm sure you will get over it..
scenario8 said:
I'd like to see an extended argument that employing hundreds of thousands of additional Police Officers in order to control (presumably) many many thousands of additional prisoners would actually be fiscally beneficial. Honestly.
Police officers have nothing to do with prisoners, they are in prisons?In the US prisons are privately owned and make a tidy profit.
It's all good
Shuvi Tupya said:
scenario8 said:
I'd like to see an extended argument that employing hundreds of thousands of additional Police Officers in order to control (presumably) many many thousands of additional prisoners would actually be fiscally beneficial. Honestly.
Police officers have nothing to do with prisoners, they are in prisons?In the US prisons are privately owned and make a tidy profit.
It's all good
I'm still willing to hear how an additional hundreds of thousands of officers, ultimately paid for by the tax payer could be fiscally beneficial - even taking into account a lower loss to society from crime. I'd love to see the numbers.
scenario8 said:
Shuvi Tupya said:
scenario8 said:
I'd like to see an extended argument that employing hundreds of thousands of additional Police Officers in order to control (presumably) many many thousands of additional prisoners would actually be fiscally beneficial. Honestly.
Police officers have nothing to do with prisoners, they are in prisons?In the US prisons are privately owned and make a tidy profit.
It's all good
I'm still willing to hear how an additional hundreds of thousands of officers, ultimately paid for by the tax payer could be fiscally beneficial - even taking into account a lower loss to society from crime. I'd love to see the numbers.
Private prisons! They make money for the country, they are profit making. They do not cost anything
Shuvi Tupya said:
scenario8 said:
I'd like to see an extended argument that employing hundreds of thousands of additional Police Officers in order to control (presumably) many many thousands of additional prisoners would actually be fiscally beneficial. Honestly.
Police officers have nothing to do with prisoners, they are in prisons?In the US prisons are privately owned and make a tidy profit.
It's all good
Suppose we require 1,000,000 prison guards at £30,000 + employment costs, total £40k. Recover NI & tax and VAT an their spending, so net cost to the treasury £20 billion.
The additional 1,000 prisons for them to work in, say £200 million each, another £200 billion capital.
Of course you need cooks, maintenance, administrators and the like, say another £10 billion.
Thats around £2,000 a year for every taxpayer. Winner!
eldar said:
Shuvi Tupya said:
scenario8 said:
I'd like to see an extended argument that employing hundreds of thousands of additional Police Officers in order to control (presumably) many many thousands of additional prisoners would actually be fiscally beneficial. Honestly.
Police officers have nothing to do with prisoners, they are in prisons?In the US prisons are privately owned and make a tidy profit.
It's all good
Suppose we require 1,000,000 prison guards at £30,000 + employment costs, total £40k. Recover NI & tax and VAT an their spending, so net cost to the treasury £20 billion.
The additional 1,000 prisons for them to work in, say £200 million each, another £200 billion capital.
Of course you need cooks, maintenance, administrators and the like, say another £10 billion.
Thats around £2,000 a year for every taxpayer. Winner!
I guess the way it works in the states is, that the prisoners have jobs to do. With a free workforce, you have a good way of making the money to pay for the prison.
Shuvi Tupya said:
eldar said:
Shuvi Tupya said:
scenario8 said:
I'd like to see an extended argument that employing hundreds of thousands of additional Police Officers in order to control (presumably) many many thousands of additional prisoners would actually be fiscally beneficial. Honestly.
Police officers have nothing to do with prisoners, they are in prisons?In the US prisons are privately owned and make a tidy profit.
It's all good
Suppose we require 1,000,000 prison guards at £30,000 + employment costs, total £40k. Recover NI & tax and VAT an their spending, so net cost to the treasury £20 billion.
The additional 1,000 prisons for them to work in, say £200 million each, another £200 billion capital.
Of course you need cooks, maintenance, administrators and the like, say another £10 billion.
Thats around £2,000 a year for every taxpayer. Winner!
I guess the way it works in the states is, that the prisoners have jobs to do. With a free workforce, you have a good way of making the money to pay for the prison.
I'm very unconvinced with this business model as described.
mybrainhurts said:
not applicable said:
It is Traffic Wardens that generate these letters round our way. Not a bad idea really, some folk are never happy though.
Quite...If you're daft enough to not know the problem, you ought to be grateful plod is trying to help you.
TBH, the letters don't really bother me , i don't like the idea of government officials looking round my car for things they perceive to be of value. and removing them.
If nothing else, it really opens them up to accusations. "Ok so you took my phone, what about the jewellery and cash? Are you saying i got robbed after you rifled through my car?" ETC.
Shuvi Tupya said:
Perhaps you don't appreciate that prisons can be a profit making venture? We could be in a situation where the country makes a profit from the scum, like they do from us!
How do they make a profit? Te US model involves them doing work cheaper on things like roadbuilding, rail maintenance etc, so that's a load of honest people with the appropriate skill being displaced, whilst Johnny Criminal makes a few quid for the now even more burdened benefit system.Or they could charge the Government a fee for services, of course that means we all pay even more both per prisoner and the fact that you'll increase the prison population by an indetrminate amount, say tenfold?
Shuvi Tupya said:
Lock up the criminals and there will be hundreds of thousands of prison guards required, more jobs, more taxes.
And all of these will come from where exactly? The Prison Service isn;t the most appealing of careers for the UK workforce nowadays, especially as pnsion benefits are being eroded, so do we bring in more EU citizens to do this?Shuvi Tupya said:
You say you should just remove temptation, how do you explain people breaking into safes?
Organised fking crime 
Read my posts on the subject. Someone doesn't walk down a street and think, I know, let's break into this building and crack a safe even though we've no tools or equipment on us.
Once again for clarity, by "Organised" I mean a crime that needs some forethought, rather than it just landing in your lap, not the Mafia.
Shuvi Tupya said:
Theives will figure out a way to take the st they need, even if it involves hurting someone to do it.
And once again they fall into the bracket of organised vs opportunistic. These people would be in the minority as not all are capable / willing to take on the extra risk / penalty incurred if caught.t they need, even if it involves hurting someone to do it.However, once again, if the Police weren't tied up dealing with opportunistic crime, then they'd have more time to solve these crimes.
Shuvi Tupya said:
As you say, this conversation could go round and round as both sides have a little merit
Not convinced that neither side has little merit. Yours in a blinkered one size fits all approach, wgich would have immediate headline grabbing results before fading to nothing as the cost grew out of all proportion.Mine would involve more effort with limited success to start with, but would gradually create sustainable results.
R1 Loon said:
How do they make a profit? Te US model involves them doing work cheaper on things like roadbuilding, rail maintenance etc, so that's a load of honest people with the appropriate skill being displaced, whilst Johnny Criminal makes a few quid for the now even more burdened benefit system.
Honestly? I would have to look into how the system works, but it is in place so i assume it is working for the US?R1 Loon said:
Or they could charge the Government a fee for services, of course that means we all pay even more both per prisoner and the fact that you'll increase the prison population by an indetrminate amount, say tenfold?
You raise a very good point. Maybe the US use prisoners for stuff that they used to pay people abroad to do, like manufacturing basic items? AAll i know is that system seems to be working for them..or maybe it isn't!Shuvi Tupya said:
Lock up the criminals and there will be hundreds of thousands of prison guards required, more jobs, more taxes.
R1 Loon said:
And all of these will come from where exactly? The Prison Service isn;t the most appealing of careers for the UK workforce nowadays, especially as pnsion benefits are being eroded, so do we bring in more EU citizens to do this?
Given the choice of being locked up permanently for theft, or staying on the straight and narrow and working in a prison and going home at night, I know what mmost people would choose.Shuvi Tupya said:
You say you should just remove temptation, how do you explain people breaking into safes?
R1 Loon said:
Organised fking crime
Read my posts on the subject. Someone doesn't walk down a street and think, I know, let's break into this building and crack a safe even though we've no tools or equipment on us.
Once again for clarity, by "Organised" I mean a crime that needs some forethought, rather than it just landing in your lap, not the Mafia.
I think i understand what you mean by organised crime. The type of people who rob banks and business's? I don't think they are affected by this type of initiative at all.king crime Read my posts on the subject. Someone doesn't walk down a street and think, I know, let's break into this building and crack a safe even though we've no tools or equipment on us.
Once again for clarity, by "Organised" I mean a crime that needs some forethought, rather than it just landing in your lap, not the Mafia.
Shuvi Tupya said:
Theives will figure out a way to take the st they need, even if it involves hurting someone to do it.
t they need, even if it involves hurting someone to do it.R1 Loon said:
And once again they fall into the bracket of organised vs opportunistic. These people would be in the minority as not all are capable / willing to take on the extra risk / penalty incurred if caught.
However, once again, if the Police weren't tied up dealing with opportunistic crime, then they'd have more time to solve these crimes.
I understand that, but it doesn't change the concept that if the courts locked up the persistent petty theives in the first place, the police would have the time they needed to deal with 'Organised crime'.However, once again, if the Police weren't tied up dealing with opportunistic crime, then they'd have more time to solve these crimes.
Shuvi Tupya said:
As you say, this conversation could go round and round as both sides have a little merit
R1 Loon said:
Not convinced that neither side has little merit. Yours in a blinkered one size fits all approach, wgich would have immediate headline grabbing results before fading to nothing as the cost grew out of all proportion.
Mine would involve more effort with limited success to start with, but would gradually create sustainable results.
Ok, well i guess that this conversation is coming to an end, if you want to continue with this 'blinkered' stuff all the time.Mine would involve more effort with limited success to start with, but would gradually create sustainable results.
I agree that what you are saying has some truth to it. It is strange that you can not see that what i am saying also does.
I am used to being happy to disagree
Shuvi Tupya said:
Pothole said:
Shuvi Tupya said:
14-7 said:
Shuvi Tupya said:
eldar said:
I can't decide if you are lazy, paranoid or unwilling to take responsibility for your own actions.
Amazing!I want to look after my own possessions and not have the police chasing around tidying up after me, and you suggest i am unwilling to take resposnibility for my own actions.
What i am asking for is THE CHANCE to take responsibility for my own actions! That is no longer an option it would seem
The option is yours but the police are trying to get crime down and people leaving items on display in cars are an open invitation to a thief.
No we can't do that either.
A mate of mine had the entire interior of his car stolen once. it was worth over £2000 and the silly bugger just left it on display, sitting in his car. He deserved it really.
Pothole said:
so how would your unbreakable windows have helped exactly?
Really?They broke the window, in order to open the door..
Of course , had he had unbreakable windows they could have bent the door and got in that way, but that would presumably be his fault for not having reinforced doors installed, rather than the fault of the thief
Edited by Shuvi Tupya on Sunday 21st November 20:53
Shuvi Tupya said:
Pothole said:
so how would your unbreakable windows have helped exactly?
Really?They broke the window, in order to open the door..
Of course , had he had unbreakable windows they could have bent the door and got in that way, but that would presumably be his fault for not having reinforced doors installed, rather than the fault of the thief
Edited by Shuvi Tupya on Sunday 21st November 20:53
Pothole said:
Shuvi Tupya said:
Pothole said:
so how would your unbreakable windows have helped exactly?
Really?They broke the window, in order to open the door..
Of course , had he had unbreakable windows they could have bent the door and got in that way, but that would presumably be his fault for not having reinforced doors installed, rather than the fault of the thief
Edited by Shuvi Tupya on Sunday 21st November 20:53
TBH though, when i mentioned unbreakable/tinted windows earlier, I was really having a dig at the tinted windows laws. You can't leave things on show, and you can't buy a product that will stop people from seeing your stuff either
Shuvi Tupya said:
Pothole said:
Shuvi Tupya said:
Pothole said:
so how would your unbreakable windows have helped exactly?
Really?They broke the window, in order to open the door..
Of course , had he had unbreakable windows they could have bent the door and got in that way, but that would presumably be his fault for not having reinforced doors installed, rather than the fault of the thief
Edited by Shuvi Tupya on Sunday 21st November 20:53
TBH though, when i mentioned unbreakable/tinted windows earlier, I was really having a dig at the tinted windows laws. You can't leave things on show, and you can't buy a product that will stop people from seeing your stuff either
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff