It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

UK Savages V the Nanny State

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 14 2007 @ 02:23 PM
link   
What is going wrong in the Uk, whilst we have idoits telling people the slogans on their tee shirts are offensive and the wearers can be fined and we have people kicked to death for protecting their property.

Its nice to see we have our priorities right, serious crimes such as murder, rape, and armed robbery go unsolved but the people police go around telling people what they can wear as it may offend our sensitivities.

When is this nonsense going to stop, when are the real criminals going to get the punishment they deserve and when are the people in this so called democracy going to be allowed to wear what they like.




posted on Aug, 14 2007 @ 02:37 PM
link   
It's simply not true to claim crime is ever-increasing and neither is the notion that the state has sat idly by and done nothing.

It is a weird proposition given that we have seen in the last 10 years an increasing prison population (to all time record levels) and sentencing toughened up in several new major 'law & order' Acts.

Those who wish to pretend otherwise will, of course, get plenty of tabloid 'back-up' but that agenda really is at odds with the facts.

There will always be odd tales of official-dom or some such ludicrous pettiness (as your referred to regarding T-shirt slogans) but to 'paint' these as typical of the entire Police & Judicial system is absurd......and that really ought to be more than obvious to all even if in the weird 'tabloid-land' it isn't (which, let's be honest, is invariably more a reflection of their political agenda than a true, consistent and accurate impression of the facts).

[edit on 14-8-2007 by sminkeypinkey]



posted on Aug, 14 2007 @ 02:56 PM
link   
Good old smink, Listen Sminkey I dont read papers full stop, most are only good for starting fires but the truth of the matter is that in manchester there have been over 50 gun related murders in the city over the last 10 years and over 50% of those are unsolved.

And yes prison populations are growing but with whom, people who dont pay fines or taxes and other such pettty crimes. Like it or not the tee shirt incidents are growing, we have cameras everywhere with more to come, why, if this is such a safe country and crime is low why all the surveillance, why all these stupid unenforcable laws yet the people are concerned of the real crime issues and real anti social behaviour.

Ther is a big difference with a tee shirt slogan and yobs smashing your car up beacause you told them not to kick a ball at it. Thats what concerns people, deal with real crime issue's and not pander to the PC brigade.



posted on Aug, 14 2007 @ 03:19 PM
link   
Sorry, but I'm just not buying the premise of this thread at all.

Sminkey has already pointed out the myth of the ever increasing crime figures as a general point but with regard to the two specific incidents you refer to, (which have both been discussed elsewhere), I can't help but believe that your thinking is wholly misguided.

It is worth noting that three people have been arrested and charged with the murder of the Warrington man assaulted while trying to stop vandals attacking his property and the man wearing the offensive t-shirt was not warned by police but, instead, by street wardens who's role is to deal with relatively minor matters specifically to help free up the police to concentrate on the more important issues.

Now to me that sounds like getting priorities dead right and it's just a pity that credit cannot be apportioned where it's due. We would all like a situation where the poor bloke in Warrington had not died in the first place but as yet I haven't seen a report which suggests that the police had let him down badly in that respect and they do appear to have brought the perpetrators into custody.

As for the t-shirt, well it may be a simplistic thought but if those older members of society who are looked to to demonstrate a degree of respect and responsibility didn't have the attitude that wearing a t-shirt in a town centre with offensive and threatening language on it, (no matter that it was intended to be light hearted), was entirely reasonable then just possibly some others may not regard respect for their fellows as being of such little importance.



posted on Aug, 14 2007 @ 03:40 PM
link   
TT whilst I agree with you to a point, we are supose dto be living in a free society, one in which we can express are views, whats next you cannot call the Goverment anything, you cannot march down the street.

Yet we have a double standard, certain gruops can wave placards insiting racial hate and murder but nothing is done about that.

Thw whole point of this thread is that we are not dealing with the real issues and a tee shirt is a none starter in my books, its a pity these people police wer'nt around to stop an innocent man being kicked to death.

And yes he was let down, by you, me, the police, the wardens, the local council and all others who make up our society. Maybe the tee shirt wearer was trying to make a point, maybe he had been on the receiving end of crime, are you saying that we are now not allowed to express our views, are we living in a police state, have the perps or the righteous more rights than the victims.

And the crime statistics work both ways, we all know they are a pack of lies.



posted on Aug, 14 2007 @ 04:23 PM
link   
Nope, sorry but I'm still not having it, not one little bit.

You're making lots of implied references to issues and events that sound good in a sound bite but just don't hold water when they're looked at in detail.

It's very easy to talk of police states and other such nonsense but the facts simply do not support anything of the sort - I'll leave that detailed argument for the other thread but what is there to suggest that we cannot legitimately complain about our Government or that anyone is even remotely close to making this situation a reality? (To demonstrate this you really are going to have to come up with something much more significant than a ban on unapproved protests within a small radius of Parliament Square by the way).

Double standards, incitement to racial hatred and murder? Are you referring to the cartoon protests, the ones that resulted in the recent jailing of some of those involved for exactly the issues you raise? - and yet you say that nothing is done.

Of course, you've entirely ignored the whole point of who was involved in warning the man in the offensive t-shirt. These people were not police, they were civilian street wardens employed specifically to free the police up to do the serious job we need them to do, street wardens who would have had no official authority or training to intervene in an assault. Not a single police minute was wasted in telling this "gentleman" that he was behaving like an immature arse. It would have been great if police had been on the scene to protect that poor individual but none of us have our own personal bodyguards on hand 24 hours a day.

Of course we are entitled to express our views but let's not get carried away here, those views may be seriously offensive to much of our society and standards of some kind have to be set and enforced even at the cost of individual liberty on occasions or should I be allowed to walk down my street with a t-shirt bearing the legend "Give paedophiles a break, they're just decent human beings who love children"?

And the crime statistics are a pack of lies, that is to say a deliberate falsification of the facts? I imagine you do have the evidence to support that statement.

[edit on 14-8-2007 by timeless test]



posted on Aug, 14 2007 @ 05:27 PM
link   
TT whats the point in discussing the issue you have your views and I have mine, I cannot speak for your life experiences but I can tell of mine, what it has been like to work in the city of Manchester for the last 28 years, I see the crime, the drugs, the perps' the victims, I do not need to rely on manipulated statistics or the tabloids or any other source because I see it every day of my working life.

Thats the problem with so many with an informed opinion, do people know what its realy like out there no they do not they rely on the controlled media to spoon feed them the so called truths. Our society is sick, sick to the point where the do gooders are more concerned about what people wear or say than those who suffer from real crime.

Go to any inner city and ask the people do you want real police doing real police work or do you want civvies telling people what to wear, what do you think the response will be. In 2006 violent crime in Manchester increased by more than 16% on the previous year, again do you want the victims of violent crime to suffer at the expense of cheap policemen chasing petty crime.



posted on Aug, 14 2007 @ 05:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by magicmushroom
TT whats the point in discussing the issue you have your views and I have mine


Well forgive me, but I would have thought that was the very best scenario for a discussion.


I do not need to rely on manipulated statistics or the tabloids or any other source because I see it every day of my working life.


OK, so why do you present manipulations of facts for our consumption here and do you honestly believe that what you personally see there in Manchester is wholly representative of all that goes on in that big city let alone what happens across the whole country?


do you want real police doing real police work or do you want civvies telling people what to wear


You're still not getting it are you? The population as a whole want both. I don't want foul mouthed and inconsiderate individuals behaving offensively in my town centre but neither do I want people being kicked to death while police deal with trivial matters - that's why street wardens exist and are generally proving to be pretty popular where they have been tried, (with everybody except the foul mouthed and inconsiderate of course). They are not an alternative to police, they are an addition to the regular police force.


do you want the victims of violent crime to suffer at the expense of cheap policemen chasing petty crime.


Of course not, that's why I quite like the idea of street wardens or community wardens who allow the police to get on with their proper work.

I fully understand that you may have a personal experience of crime and crime prevention which is not satisfactory but that doesn't invalidate all national statistics and neither does it make the views of those who have a better experience any less valid. We certainly don't live in a perfect world but as long as we keep misrepresenting the facts, either through false reporting or a failure to look at the whole picture, we will never learn what is really happening or how to make it better.


Edn

posted on Aug, 14 2007 @ 09:21 PM
link   
Funny you should mention street wardens, Ive never seen one, probably due to the fact that we only have one part time policeman per every 7,000~ people here.

Not everywhere is bad, in fact I know some places with virtually no crime but here, dam, I wouldn't never even consider going into town after dark, its just not safe. Theres police (occasionally), theres cameras, but the occasional policeman and any amount of cameras wont and haven't stopped people stabbing, shooting, mugging or beating up passers by.

Pretty safe during the day though, you just need to be careful not to take paths away from the main roads.

On the street wardens I don't see them working very well (if i actually ever saw one), there wouldn't be any respect for them, after all there not policemen, glorified prefects and you all know what happens to them.

[edit on 14-8-2007 by Edn]



posted on Aug, 15 2007 @ 01:49 AM
link   
I don't know where you you live Edn but it is worth remembering that street warden schemes are introduced and run by local authorities and not everywhere has them which may be why you don't see them.

In my experience, which is obviously limited to certain local areas they have been broadly welcomed by the community and police alike but others, of course, may have a different experience.



posted on Aug, 15 2007 @ 07:18 AM
link   
The crux of the 'perception of crime' argument. No matter how many times I'm fed those statistics they're still not stopping me from seeing those fears becoming reality on the streets, from stories from friends, neighbours or work colleagues. None of whom live on sink estates but more often in what would be considered ok areas if it weren't for the chavs roaming the area, treating it as their personal anti social playground. Not that it would make it right if it were confined to sink estates mind, they deserve quality of life as much as anyone else.

And of course I've seen it get worse....and worse...and worse over the past twenty years but still I'm being told I'm chicken little. Keep on ignoring people's real fears and grieviences and see where we are in another ten years time. Either streets given over completely to the mob or community's taking the law into their own hands. Personally I can live with the latter if it's a choice between the lesser of two evils.

And the reason the prisons are full up, repeat offenders, earning their stars and merity badges with paltry sentences might have have something to do with it. I'm quite happy to furnish a list of all the incidents that have occured in my imagination over the past twelve months. Just let me know.



posted on Aug, 15 2007 @ 07:24 AM
link   
Oh we have street wardens too. I've seen them twice in three years, outside Morrisons buying thier lunch. But hey we get enough of them and give them the powers to effectively police rather than act as straw men and I'll be happy enough. Of course that and getting rid of poncey liberal judges who don't have to live with the consequences of their half baked social theories.



posted on Aug, 15 2007 @ 09:32 AM
link   
Hi ubermunche - I felt sure that we would end up chatting on this thread before too much longer.

I can't change your perceptions and in your local area they may even be correct but as long as we continue to rubbish statistics which do not support our case then little progress will be made. We both know that statistics on the incidence of crime are notoriously difficult to compile or validate, which doesn't necessarily mean that they are lies, just that data is very hard to collect reliably. So I thought I'd have a look at sentencing which does at least have the advantage that the raw data should be reliable even if the drivers behind that data are sometimes obscure.

In particular, you said...


Originally posted by ubermunche
And the reason the prisons are full up, repeat offenders, earning their stars and merity badges with paltry sentences might have have something to do with it.


Well, I found an interesting piece of evidence presented to the Commons Select Committee on Home Affairs relating to data up to 2005, (the currency of data is another problem), which makes this comment:

The real culprit behind the rise in the prison population since 1995 is the extent to which the Crown Court has passed many more long and very long prison sentences.

parliament.uk

The numbers of prisoners serving sentences of more than four years at the end of 2005 was 90% up since 1991 at 32,000.

What is not causing the population to grow significantly is people serving "paltry" sentences as the number in custody in 2005 serving 6 month sentences or shorter was just 6,000, compared to 32,000 serving the longer sentences I referred to above.

The other reason widely quoted for growing prison population in very recent years has been the use of indeterminate sentences. These are intended primarily as public protection sentences but have been used far more than was ever expected and has upset all sorts of people such as the Prison Reform Trust - some may consider that upsetting them can only be a good thing.

OK, these are still statistics and we all know they can be used to demonstrate much of what you want to demonstrate but they do at least come from a reliable source of data and they do seem to indicate that some of those poncey liberal judges may have grown some backbone along the way.

It's an interesting read if you like that kind of thing but probably very dull if someone is busy trying to organise a vigilante group.



posted on Aug, 15 2007 @ 11:14 AM
link   
Could you specify if these sentences relate to vioent and anti-social crimes, to youth disorder etc. And even if it's so then when they come out and repeat offend they should then get 8 years.

But the question of sentences, apprpriate or otherwise is a side issue. You're saying people's fear of violent crime is unjustified. I'm saying it's not it's completely justified.

And again if we can't have some visible police presence that's stopping crime rather than remaining invisible until 10 mins after the damage is done then if I have to choose between me going in fear of the thugs or the thugs going in fear of some vigilante, I'll choose the latter. You don't drop a civilised man into a viper pit, refuse to help him out and then accuse him of cruelty for stamping on the snakes head.



posted on Aug, 15 2007 @ 11:49 AM
link   
Sorry ubermunche, I don't have that information. That's not to say it's unavailable, there's a vast amount of statistics which can be accessed but sometimes very difficult to trawl your way through.

Recidivism rates are a major problem and I recall seeing a figure somewhere of 40% for violent crime. The problem here though is the quality of the data again which has appeared as an issue in just about every analysis of crime figures I've ever read. In that particular example the stats carried a health warning that someone convicted of assault may not show up in that data as a repeat offender if his original offence was burglary. You already know, of course, that however liberal some of my views may appear to be I agree that repeat offenders should be facing severe sentences by default - where we put them is another problem.

As a slight digression I remember from that recidivism data that those least likely to reoffend were sexual offenders and especially child sex offenders which may surprise some. However, the health warning applies again as the data can only look at those who have been proved to reoffend and those serving the longest sentences will, of course, get the least chance.

I'm not sure that I could pass judgement on whether or not someone's fear of crime was justified or not but what I am saying is that the best statistics we have say two things very clearly.

1. Overall, (i.e. across the whole country), you are less likely to be a victim of crime today than you were last year.
2. The vast majority of us are not victims of crime, particularly serious or violent crime. Indeed, if you take out of violent crimes those that are carried out by people we know very well such as spouses etc. then the figures are even clearer.

"Justified" is probably the wrong word but I would say that most people's perception of their likelihood of falling victim to serious crime is seriously over estimated. You may reasonably ask if the falling likelihood of becoming a victim of crime results at least in part from the fact that growing numbers of us won't venture out after dark and put ourselves at risk and I would have to say that there may be some truth in that.

As for a more visible police presence: I would have to agree that this can normally only be a good thing and if it prevents crime rather than responds to it then how could it be anything else? But, just how much are we prepared to pay for it?

All things are possible in this world, (with the probable exception of West Ham winning the league), but they all come at a cost and the best way to lose a whole shed load of votes at any election is to tell people they are going to have to pay more tax and so we live in a world of compromise. A world where we employ cheap Neighbourhood Wardens rather than expensive police, and where CCTV replaces a copper on every corner.

We get the society we deserve and if we prefer to spend our hard earned in the pub rather than on our security some may say that we don't deserve it.



posted on Aug, 16 2007 @ 12:18 AM
link   
Firstly may I condemn these particular Community Officers for concerning themselves about the nature of someone’s fashion taste. It’s an infringement of what I (and many) believe to be civil liberties, and it’s an insult for the law to be the side of these jobs worth’s. If the law is on their side I would like to think Labour might tidy this matter up (some time within the next one thousand pieces of legislation). However I have my doubts.

Savage Politics
Britain’s prisons are overflowing; therefore the government has screwed up, much of the credit they might have had for various reductions in crime.
Prisons overcrowding is a black mark that does not easily wash out; basically it’s almost impossible to argue that anyone other than the Labour Party is responsible. At the end of the day they’ve had ten years of big parliamentary majorities, big finance budgets, numerous warnings (permanently in the simple form of escalating prison numbers) to do something, the crisis did not occur overnight.

Labour says they deserve credit for tougher legislation.
In order to evaluate this claim one would need to know how many are in prison because of longer sentences, compared with those in prison because of an increases in offending?

In any case few members of the public pay much attention to this statistical maths.
Instead: The political facts have always been the party of power will receive rewards for effective legislation that targets those who are responsible for peoples fear of crime.

The Savages…
There is a reason why the word “Chav” has been invented in recent years; it’s probably also the same reason why statistics do not conform to what we the people see with our own eyes.
Our experience of crime is coming from a small group in society, it’s what sociologists call the “under class” and what most other people call Chav’s.
The “Sub Class” is unemployable, poor, dysfunctional offspring, often the products of single mums who lack a father figure to keep theirs sons under control once they get past the age of about 13. A father provides to a child something called a “role model” this is basically when you look at you’re dad as a child and wonder how you could be more like him. This is natural.
However when the father figure is missing, these young kids look to the nearest available which too often is teenage boys. Frankly I find it hard to imagine a role model worse than teenage boys. This after all is the time when both sexes are most irresponsible, rebellious and generally stupid. I’ve heard you are more likely to die at 16 than 60 (I don’t know if that’s true) but it’ll certainly apply to accidents.

What to do about this Sub Class of savages? That is the question.
I advocate: More CID to disrupt their activities, escalating prison sentences for repeat offenders, higher alcohol taxes (not on wines but the more commonly abused drinks), banning all drinking anywhere outside private homes or licensed premises.

Reforming benefits to turn them more like limited well paid work, and certainly to end this nonsense of single mums getting almost as much from the state of couples, many single mums parasite benefits cash intended for their kids, so perhaps it needs to be paid onto a welfare debit card (so the benefits office can check it was spent on children’s stuff).

But how to provide the roll model? Free sports? I don’t know.



posted on Aug, 16 2007 @ 11:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by timeless test
I'm not sure that I could pass judgement on whether or not someone's fear of crime was justified or not but what I am saying is that the best statistics we have say two things very clearly.

1. Overall, (i.e. across the whole country), you are less likely to be a victim of crime today than you were last year.
2. The vast majority of us are not victims of crime, particularly serious or violent crime. Indeed, if you take out of violent crimes those that are carried out by people we know very well such as spouses etc. then the figures are even clearer.


The trouble is that despite the fact that I don’t see these kind of crimes on a daily basis, it only needs to be the one time for it to have far reaching consequences on your life. For want of a better description the chavs roaming in packs on the streets have come to be completely unafraid of the consequences of what they do and this has led to an escalation in the severity of their actions. People are beaten to death or so badly beaten they suffer life long injuries, brain damage or coma. This is unacceptable. People’s homes are targeted, vandalised their loved ones threatened, their lives corroded. This leaves phycological scars and causes stress. It’s not like a group of scallies getting up to mischief it’s far worse and it scares people and it makes them angry. And it happens more often than some are willing to And it only has to be the once. Like being raped.


"Justified" is probably the wrong word but I would say that most people's perception of their likelihood of falling victim to serious crime is seriously over estimated. You may reasonably ask if the falling likelihood of becoming a victim of crime results at least in part from the fact that growing numbers of us won't venture out after dark and put ourselves at risk and I would have to say that there may be some truth in that.


I’d say people being cautious has a lot to do with why we don’t see more of it. I might overestimate my chances of falling victim to it but the consequences of falling victim to it are far far more serious than a smack in the mouth you might have risked twenty years ago. Here’s an interesting experiment. Ask people about their perception of violent and anti social crime, then find out whether they drive everywhere o walk and use public transport more. Pound to a penny those who spend more time on the streets are probably more aware of it.



We get the society we deserve and if we prefer to spend our hard earned in the pub rather than on our security some may say that we don't deserve it.


But doesn’t this smack of some kind of appeasement. I work hard why shouldn’t I enjoy a drink after work, does that mean I deserve risking being a statistic every time I step outside my door. Sorry there are plenty of areas where my hard earned money is squandered by the govt which could be put to better use with regards to crime and social safety without me having to give up yet another of life’s pleasures. I know you’re not meaning to say this but in a way you’re buying into that ‘serf’ mentality that the British are so prone to and manipulated by. Know your place and we tell you what you deserve. That’s BS, I work hard enough and should be able to enjoy life and have an acceptable degree of safety. Tolerating sadistic thugs is not an acceptable compromise.

Finally Timeless I honestly don’t see you as some namby pamby, I agree in principle with a lot that you say but there are some areas based on experience where I have to differ. So no hard feelings.






[Mod Edit: Formatting - Jak]

[edit on 17/8/07 by JAK]



posted on Aug, 16 2007 @ 04:27 PM
link   
This may shed some light on the situation of the UK.

www.youtube.com...

I keep hereiong worse and wosre things from the other side of the pond. I herad that one of the new rules put in by the new guy, Gordon, where you are no longer alowwed to used the word 'terrorist' in relation to the words 'Muslem and Islam'.

Thats as bad as it is here in relation to when the have a suspect on the loose, they can release eye color,, wieght, hieght, but god-forbid you say the color of the suspects skin.

I know that the UK have some of the best security/ prevention in the world. WIth cameras... everywhere, but you are losing your first amemdent rights, i don't what you call it there in the UK, and your founding rights... but im sure thats there is somethign that protects your right to free speach. The only place this kind of crap flys in the states is in the public schools.



posted on Aug, 17 2007 @ 03:18 AM
link   
reply to post by ubermunche
 


I can't imagine why there should be any hard feelings ubermunche,

An intelligent rational discusssion is what this site is meant to be all about and it would very dull if we all agreed with each other all the time.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join