Read the forum code of contact
By: - 24th September 2017 at 20:05 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
If only ! Our leftie justices would never approve of anything so radical. Punishment as a deterrent ? Wash your mouth out.
By: - 24th September 2017 at 21:10 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
My local ironmonger sells caustic soda which is pretty nasty stuff. When I was a schoolboy I was able to buy ether, castor oil and amyl nitrate over the counter from the local pharmacy in order to mix my own fuel for a model aircraft diesel engine. Just try that now.
By: - 24th September 2017 at 22:34 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
John Green
I agree that our justice system appears too often to be soft on crime, why pray does this become a"Leftie" system, hate to remind you but we are 7 years into Tory government control, or does the left still control legislation?, in your book I will definitely be a "Leftie" but I would be far too harsh to preside over the sentencing of violent criminals, particularly crimes against children or the rise of these violent gangs who appear to roam our streets untroubled, just remind me again who keeps cutting or even paying our police officers.
By: - 25th September 2017 at 11:36 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
One day we might get some value out of our police. y'know, a full days pay for a full days work. We might see them on the streets instead of lurking in their 'ivory towers' where they are busy grading crime to justify whether they can be bothered to attend or not. If the police worked a bit harder and took fewer 'sickies' then they should be able to handle all the crime that comes their way.
My TV frequently shows pictures of 'celebrities' being escorted thru Heathrow or some airport by large numbers of, very often armed, police. This is not a good image for the Police Federation to build upon when they go into one of their frequent spasms of industrial outrage when various Home Secretaries take them to task. The taxpayer pays for plenty of coppers, they just need to work harder.
If you are trying to argue that our justice system is not notoriously left wing you are clearly selective in your interpretation. What has seven years of Tory control got to do with left wing inspired interpretation of the law ? Look at the political composition of the Supreme Court ! The daily media is full of examples of anguished victims of crime who feel let down by the sentencing policy of the judiciary.
By: - 25th September 2017 at 12:55 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
JG you clearly know very little about the realities of being a policeman/woman today, indeed your words are insulting to those who do serve.
Try spending a few shifts with them, out there on the streets and see the hard work they get for little or no thanks and unfounded armchair criticism from the likes of yourselves and the DM. Those who were killed or injured during recent attacks were hardly in their ivory towers were they?
My best friend, a Met sniper squad commander who hardly sees is family these days; a close family member who is a magistrate and another who is a sergeant in Cheshire, I can see the reality of it all.
They are far from hiding in ivory towers. They are underfunded, your hero May (from a party that once called itself the party of law and order) has cut their numbers, they are also hampered due to a comprehensively inadequate and ineffective justice system.
The Tory part has been in power for 7 or so years now so to lay blame at "lefties" is a little old hat. May and the Tories are in power, yet are too ineffective to seemingly represent the peoples wishes at all. Yes the justice system is ineffective, needs tightening up hugely and criminals made to pay properly for their actions, but don't direct your words at the police, direct them toward the government in power.
By: - 25th September 2017 at 13:46 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
It's 'heroine' not 'hero'. One is feminine, the other is masculine. The Blessed May is not my heroine. Where did that nonsense come from ?
There is more TV police live action these days that one can shake a stick at. I see badly uniformed, baseball capped - other than when they are dressed like Robocop - overweight coppers addressing those they apprehend as 'mate'. Have I ever heard any suspected lowlife addressed as 'sir' or 'madam' - no, I have not. Should they be ? Yes, they should.
I note that you gloss over my Heathrow scenario. My question is; who pays for these police escorts to the glitterati ? My answer; the bl##dy taxpayer, that's who. Why are the police performing these wholly un-necessary excursions when they should be engaged in doing what they are paid to do: the prevention and detection of crime and the apprehension of the wrong doer ?
Yes, I concede they put themselves in the firing line. But, that is what they are paid to do. I served in the Armed Forces. Did I complain when some misbegotten apology for a terrorist heaved a grenade at my head? No, I didn't. I was paid to do a job. Being injured or killed is part of the risk you take.
My previous rant was about the ineffectiveness of the judiciary. With that, apparently, you agree. Among the many lurid headlines that appear from time to time about the police, I'm reminded that female chief constables are seemingly fond of comparing bosom sizes in public and allegations of misconduct in a public office appear to follow one upon the other.
I've often wondered why the police seem to think that they need a trades union. The Police Federation seem to have a unique access to extremely aggressive individuals fronting the Federation as Secretary. Those that I've seen and observed in action do not present themselves as reasonable and conciliatory. Rather the reverse.
By: - 25th September 2017 at 14:33 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I note that you gloss over my Heathrow scenario. My question is; who pays for these police escorts to the glitterati ? My answer; the bl##dy taxpayer, that's who. Why are the police performing these wholly un-necessary excursions when they should be engaged in doing what they are paid to do: the prevention and detection of crime and the apprehension of the wrong doer ?Yes, I concede they put themselves in the firing line. But, that is what they are paid to do. I served in the Armed Forces. Did I complain when some misbegotten apology for a terrorist heaved a grenade at my head? No, I didn't. I was paid to do a job. Being injured or killed is part of the risk you take.
Totally and utterly agree..... WTF were all these in attendance for
Having seen the effects of a drunk drivers actions, WHY were all these police in attendance, do the crime, take to blame and accept the consequences there off.. He kicks a bag of wind between 2 sticks and gets paid hansomely for it, let him pay for his own security.
By: - 25th September 2017 at 15:18 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
One day we might get some value out of our police.
Indeed.
And one day, we might actually see them on the streets again!
Thanks to that tit Tony Blair and his then government, the reduction of police on our local streets diminished to one community officer that had to deal with a wide local area, supported in the end, by just one of those dreaded PCOs!
Not forgetting the fact that they decided it would be a wise idea to shut down our local police station and sell it off (along with a whole host of others around the country).
So roll the clock forward to today, and I can say that I have not seen one single police officer in our town or local area this year!
So if you are a victim of a crime, don't bother trying to find one, and don't even bother letting them know, unless of course it qualifies as a hate one.
Then you'll probably have half a dozen of them round at once!
Cheers
Paul
By: - 25th September 2017 at 15:53 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
See he has been released on bail, It would be a crying shame if some of those who he has afflicted ( If indeed he has ) see him.
By: - 25th September 2017 at 19:33 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Bradburger,
What are you on? it was under the Blair government that police numbers were increased, real spending in terms of GDP was increased, it was also under the Blair government that times between arrests and the accused appearing in court were cut dramatically, crime rates fell, in fact it was the falling crime rates which gave the Tories the bright idea that we no longer needed as many police officers.
The Blair government didn't meet all their targets for the Criminal Justice System, but they went a long way towards it, the Tories have lived on the Labour government's success using those figures as an excuse to cut police spending and numbers.
By: - 25th September 2017 at 19:58 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
John et al. Sorry to have to bring it back to 2017, but what has any of this got to do with the Left? How on earth can anyone make a connection between years of Tory government, 'that tit' Blair, the mess our police service is in, an inadequate justice system and... left wing politics? Has no one on the right noticed there is no possible connection and there hasn't been for a very long time!
That mantra often repeated by the right - take responsibility for your actions - applies completely here.
By: - 25th September 2017 at 20:36 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
SF,
I don't know what planet you were on at the time, and it's all very well spurting facts and figures, when they have no real meaning.
I remember well how despite all these so called improvements to the police force were told to us, the reality was it different.
In our town, that meant less actual police presence, replaced by the cheap and of little use PCSOs that Blair had us believe would make a big difference.
(I seem to recall about 10 years or so ago, there was a big hoo-ha over cuts by the government in police officers, and cockups with criminal record checks, and convictions abroad).
But whoever you want to blame, the fact is, Blair and his government had a very big part in ******* our police force up, and the country as a whole - something we are sadly still paying for.
Cheers
Paul
By: - 25th September 2017 at 21:01 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Bradburger,
Please don't tell me you are another one who believes that the Labour government caused the financial crash, who somehow virtually bankrupted the country, Labour's failing at that time was in not regulating more tightly the financial sector, in not scrapping the banking free for all originally launched by the Tories, but sadly they were also dazzled by the apparent profits and income from the banking sector.
By: - 25th September 2017 at 22:05 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Please don't tell me you are another one who believes that the Labour government caused the financial crash, who somehow virtually bankrupted the country, Labour's failing at that time was in not regulating more tightly the financial sector, in not scrapping the banking free for all originally launched by the Tories, but sadly they were also dazzled by the apparent profits and income from the banking sector.
And why would you assume that?
I was actually talking about Blair' and his 'New' Labour attempts at undermining and wanting to destroy Britain, it's people and everything it stood for, so he could shape and align it with his idea of a federal europe and our place in it.
Cheers
Paul
By: - 26th September 2017 at 21:17 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Bradburger,
Certainly Blair was an EU enthusiast, but as to wanting to undermine and destroy Britain, he doesn't come close to the Tories who will sell us off piecemeal to anyone, who will place government contracts with foreign companies when those contracts could and should be filled by UK or UK based companies, I am not in favour of a Federal Europe, but even less in favour of a UK where every damn thing is owned and run for and by foreign investors, which seems to be the aim of the Tories.
By: - 27th September 2017 at 23:04 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
John, 'our leftie justice system'? Once again you confuse leftie with liberal.
You really have a problem understanding that distinction, don't you?
Once again. Please read carefully. Move your lips if it helps comprehension.
There is NOTHING in the theory or practice of socialism that would make any justice system more lenient.
Socialism.has nothing to say about law or the application of it. Just as it has nothing to say about teaching methods (cf..your 'leftie educationalists').
You are confused, and I expect.it comes from a deliberate conflation of two entirely different concepts by a particular strand of self-interested peddlers of lazy stereotypes.
By: - 27th September 2017 at 23:17 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
SF, I am a firm believer that none of the core services should be in foreign ownership...... energy, (electricity, gas, water, nuclear, ) including design and construction, defence, transport infrastructure, rail road etc, banking.
By: - 28th September 2017 at 20:54 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Tony T
We are in total agreement on that score. make a Labour voter of you yet;)
Incidentally you referred to use of police resources escorting or guarding the not particularly worthy, saw the preparations for the Tory Party conference in Manchester, 1,000 police on duty providing security, entire area caged in, airport style scanning equipment, to actually get in you must have 6 months Tory party membership, be approved by GMP, will need photo ID on the day, ie passport or/and driving licence, not exactly the party of the people.
By: - 29th September 2017 at 09:57 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
That is totally understandable considering they are the Government in power, the security threat that exists, are away from the protection of Westminster, are together with a lot of "high" value targets present and bearing in mind the Brighton Bombing, and the attempts to enter Westminster of late.
Edit:
I will add to that, the Labour security will probably be not that much different, however although the opposite numbers are briefed they will not be in the know to the extent of the serving Government nor have their finger on the trigger.
If you wipe out the Government the country would collapse to an extent, if you wipe out the opposition, the Government are still in place and although the opposition has gone, they would stiill be able to continue / function making the day to day decisions, all be it severely hampered until replacements for the opposition are elected etc.
A footballer charged and found guilty of drink driving is a criminal, in my eyes a drink driver is one of the worst types of criminal, they often destroy innocent lives simply to satisfy their thirst for alcohol and not someone who should warrant extra police protection, one plod would have sufficed.
By: - 29th September 2017 at 10:29 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
SF
So far as point scoring or, indeed anything else for that matter, you're always 'wide of the mark'. How can you reconcile the presence of police, escorting so-called celebrities for no readily apparent worthwhile reason with that of the necessary protection of Govt. members ?
Tony T says it in a nutshell.
Posts: 8,983
By: TonyT - 24th September 2017 at 17:32
Interesting to see they are discussing banning / controlling the substances, problem is how do you do that, bleach is one used, acid are you going to ban car batteries? And even if they dilute it in some products, boiling / evaporating the water off will restore it, if that's dangerous, freeze it down and remove the ice.
The only solution is to make it a deterrent and make the sentence life imprisonment, your victim is sentenced to one.