"I am ashamed, on behalf of my country, the Britain that used to shine a beacon of justice for the world to follow."
Sic transit Gloria mundi. Britain also used to be the safest country on earth. Too bad that particular decline doesn't excite your sense of shame.
Alas Fred S must be a Mail Reader just like the Govt.
What disturbs me more than anything, and its not just confined to this issue is that the Govt (a Labour Govt for god's sake) is so concerned with what they think middle england thinks and is so obsessed with staying in power that they believe the hogwash that this and other media outlets manufacture.
So, instead of explaining and understanding themselves how the system actually works, they simply follow the battle cry of "lock 'em up" for the slightest misdemeanour. At the same time they introduce a system which hands out cautions for crimes that should be dealt with at Crown Court. There is no logic and simply a knee jerk reaction to the posturing of the media clowns who are incensed that anyone but they should be running things - and we let it happen. And worse still, sensible people start to believe the hogwash becuse no-one dares to question it from a position of knowledge.
They underfund the only organisations that can have a real effect on those starting on the criminal ladder, make sure that prison is overcrowded with IPPs and yet withdraw the suspended sentence from summary offences which might actually help to prevent prisons from overflowing and blame us, the magistrates for sending too many people down.
And I tramped the streets in 1997 to get rid of the trash that was running the country. Depressed? I could spit!
And then when the signs look good again (or less bad) Gordon shows his political ineptitude and messes up biig style on his timing.
Bystander, thank you for this post. The PRT report makes sickening reading, the more so since one can safely guess that, if pressed, the government will do no more than blame everything on the sentencers.
In this context, I was particularly struck by the fact that there are now more IPP prisoners than short-sentence prisoners in the system.
How much has it cost to hold them in prison for longer, compared to the cost of getting the courses and court ordered treatment?
Locking up people is fine, but one has to take responsiblity for them once they are locked up.
I don't need to read it. If it addresses anything to do with the knee jerk Blair government's reaction to crime then it makes sense and will have no effect whatsoever on the chaos created by that government and the people who enforce its Laws.
Reveal yourself, Bystander, stand down and declare yourself as dissatisfied with the 3rd rate justice system you work in. You will never make a difference, otherwise.
Thanks for the link. I read the report. The whole thing is a disgrace. It seems that insurgents detained in Iraq get better treatment:Link
What a bunch of do-gooders. Just read this sentence from the report:
"For violent offences the list includes assault resisting arrest, robbery, arson, burglary with intent to do unlawful damage and breaking section 1 of the public order act (rioting). So it runs all the way from relatively minor offences..."
Erm, which of that list constitutes (in their eyes) a "relatively minor" offence???
They also cite the example of individual who developed a penchant for lighting fires inside buildings as someone who should not have received such a sentence. Unbelievable.
Why is there a post about a recently appointed judge?
Ok he has an interest in aviation and fast cars - so what. Whilst the former is an infrequently cited interest, the latter interest is common to many a young twocker. Anyone who has studied criminal law and justice will be aware of the relationship between judicial minds and the sentenced.
You will of course note that much of the rhetoric suggests that the judiciary and of course Parliament is representative of a diverse society. Is this the start?
Bystander, please explain, for the avoidance of doubt.
Expensive taste in transport...member of the Garrick...uncommon name (nb, double barrel surnamed advocates)...wears pins. He is not far away from a judicial stereotype!
"Erm, which of that list constitutes (in their eyes) a "relatively minor" offence???"
I'd go for some kinds of arson (e.g. the chap in the report who set fire to an outdoor rubbish bin), some kinds of robbery (e.g. grabbing someone's bag from their shoulder), and some kinds of burglary with intent to do unlawful damage (e.g. on commercial premises). Y'know, offences where no major harm is done and nobody gets hurt...
John B,
I know someone who had a bag grabbed from her shoulder. No physical harm was done. But her asthma inhaler was inside it, without which she could have died, perhaps as a result of an asthma attack being brought on by the shock of having her bag snatched.
As you say, no major harm done, which is why the CPS thought a caution was the best sentence.
I on the other hand would have gladly seen him go to prison indefinitely, during which time the number of bags containing life-saving medicine he would have stolen would have been zero. He would also have had plenty of time to think about the consequences his despicable actions could have had for an entirely innocent lady.
The CPS should never caution for a bag snatch like that. But that's the way it seems to be going.
2 Visitors Online
Commenting by HaloScan
