Slightly extreme, but the point is well made.

And what if afterwards new evidence comes to light to show that actually the person was innocent? Do the jury then all have to be shot for killing an innocent man?

Good luck finding any jury which will risk finding anyone guilty.

That's a highly inaccurate presentation, the jury renders a verdict, the judge pronounces sentence, so unless you're a rabid advocate of 'had anything to do with', retroactive penalties, I fail to see your point.

The worst they might be accused of would be manslaughter, by unwitting complicity.

I repeat my earlier assertion: people here seem to prefer punishment, the more severe the better, rather than addressing the defining issue and preventing the crime.

Why is this?

Because unfortunately you can't lock scum up for looking like they're about to do something terrible. Have you seen the photos of Stuart Hazell? I'd have had a bullet put in the back of his head for any one of his previous 30 convictions. That would have prevented him doing unspeakable things to a 12 year old girl.

Everyone likes a witch hunt Neil, but I see your point.

So, crime prevention - areas to focus on:
- The potential punishment
- The knock on effects (future employment prospects, stigma, not seeing loved ones, social outcast)
- Motivation to carry out the crime in the first place

Sitting in blissfully ignorant judgement and meting out harsh retribution is a lot easier than trying to work out how to motivate people away from committing crime.

Before anyone chokes on the froth from their mouths, I'm not suggesting that cuddling people will prevent crimes such as the murder of the poor Tia lass, but removing many of the most susceptible people from the cycle of offending by giving them better things to do might allow us to concentrate on protecting society from the really bad ones as well as saving us millions.
I don't know what the best solutions are, but I'd really like to try and find some, because what we have now isn't working very well, despite seemingly low crime figures.

Driving a vehicle is part of society, seeing as our transport system has been built around using roads. It's pretty hard to avoid driving for a lot of people, and people die even if you obey the speed limits and don't drink drive.

It's not hard to avoid abusing young girls though.

Because we don't have "Pre-Cogs" ala Minority Report?

So you would support much harsher sentences for those who do drink drive, or drive dangerously, or speed? After all, it's not hard to avoid doing those things.

I have written, and deleted several replies, simply put, Brewster scares me.

Although the good news is, by his rules i can shoot him becuase I think he's going to do something bad

Out of interest, Brewster, could you list all of Stuart Hazell's 30 convictions so that i can just make sure i'm safe? I have only managed to find the 3-4 'greatest hits' in the media reports i've read.

No need to be scared. I'm just biding my time. We aren't in enough of a malaise for me to claim my post as High Chancellor yet.

Remember, Brewster is actually Dr Evil.

Talking of finding a solution rather than dealing with the crimes ther is at least thsi initiative going on.

Basically 120,000 families costing £9bn, and they account for a massive amount of the crime commited.

If you can break the cycle of these poeple continuing to breed large families from the age of 16 or below then you can start reducing a lot of social issue and crime.

From a personal stand point i can never agree with capital punishment, we all make mistakes and I would rather not be in a position where I made one which accounted for someone elses life (guilty or not).

I have worked for the DHSS, a long time ago in the 80's. It was tough and i saw a lot of people suffering. But i also saw a small group of people who caused us the majority of work. These were not people who had fallen on hard times in a difficult work climatt. No, these were people who had been on benefits for life and would continue doing so, and advising their kids to do so, for life. There was a resignation from staff at the time that this growing issue would never be addressed.

I have definitely seen this aswell. Whilst at uni I lived next door to a family which lived off of benefits, we asked the teenage kids whether they planned to go to uni and we go the response. "No way! theres no point when we can stay at home and live of benefits like mum and dad!"

The truely sad thing is that the daughter, who was the youngest of 3 kids was actually incredibly intellegent and being the youngest of 3 had already developed, at the age off 11, a wicked and extremely agile sense of humour. She could put you in your place in less than 5 words.

She's probably preggers by now though, if not already popped one out. Simply due to the lifestyle and expectations of these kids. Fingers crossed her intelligence has kept her away from that.

Yep which is why people like this should have all benefits removed and they should be put to work for the council. I'm sure they can pick litter, paint fences, weed, even pick the shite up their fighting "look how 'ard I am because I av dis 'ard dog" has left on the pavement. Hopefully that would save the councils enough money to fix the roads....

So that's 2 million people you have to pay minimum wage.

2m x £6.19/hour x 40hours/week x 52weeks/year, for an annual cost of £25.8 billion.



On the downside it would put out of work all of the people who currently pick up litter, paint fences, etc.

On the upside, as soon as they became unemployed they could be put back to work doing the jobs they used to do, but now for minimum wage. That should be popular.



You're a bit obsessed with the roads, aren't you deary?

I think you missed the point, they would work for the council to get their benefits - odd jobs, repairing the mess these people make. It wouldn't put anyone out of work, it would simply allow the bloke that picks litter to do a job like supervise the team. The theory works as - if you don't get something for nothing you may wish to get a job. If no jobs are available at least you have a routine that allows you to integrate back into the working cycle once an opening arises. Yes I don't like roads that are full of pot holes, I don't like paying road tax and not feeling any benefit.

Sorry I didn't quite explain clearly honey buns x

I think you missed the point. There is a reason why it's called the minimum wage.

People in this country talk too much and do too little.

I was beaten with a cane at home and school my entire childhood when I was naughty. It taught me respect in many different ways and I thank God that I had the upbringing I did.

That's one reason why I probably won't ever have children over here, because I will punish them in the same way I was punished for being naughty, ill mannered, rude etc, but apparently that's illegal over here.

Minimum wage = £'s per hour... Not a minimum income.
There is also a reason it's called a wage, I never said they would be employed - it's a simple turn up, do what's required and you get your benefits, don't and you wont. Nobody would be fired for not turning up..... I guess you'd rather benefits be given as a reward for breeding as early as possible and never having to contribute a single hour of your life to working? Seems an odd side to take....

So on a twist to my suggestion, I now have a greener scheme. Sorting waste for recycling in council facilities. They could then actually contribute to a better planet?

Wow thats probably the most sense you have ever made on the forum Just kidding
I totally agree though. People to talk too much and there is little action.

As for dicipline... I was brought up by Italian parents. They dont take any shit When i was naughty i was told once, failing that if i continued i would get beaten, whether it was a smack, wooden spoon or a slipper (obviously depending on the gravity of what i had done). I was a little shit when i was a kid, i admit that, if i was left to get on with it God knows how i would have turned out now.

There is a fine line between disciplining your children and abuse. I think parents should be allowed to use force if they feel its necessary... as long as its not excessive.

Youngsters these days have jack all respect for authority and that really pisses me off. I once heard a little kid no more than 12 tell a police man to go and do one (his choice of language was somewhat different). When i was that age i wouldn't even dare to do something like that. The same applies in schools with how children feel they can speak to teachers.

Being beaten by a cane can teach you one way in which respect may* be earned. It may also stifle your imagination as to other ways it can be achieved.

*Of course, if you were caned for something you didn't do or felt the punishment was disproportionate it more likely has the opposite effect.

What is the incentive for the council to keep on employing the existing litter-picker? Are they suitable for a supervisory role? Do the council need as many supervisors as they currently have employees?

More importantly, what's going to be your defence when somebody brings a case to court complaining that you are contravening minimum wage laws, and also making them work to a level which make sustained job hunting impossible, effectively sentencing them to a life of indentured servitude?

All of these amazingly simple plans, which you're astounded no government has implement - that because the plans are amazingly simple

My plans are simple, as are all good plans. (I couldn't be arsed writing a full business plan for you all to pick at as the kids are playing up and I'm trying to enjoy my week off work...) They used to, but sadly human rights and the minimum wage got in the way...

Which brings us back on topic! Do gooders stopping people being punished effectively, or being helped to re adjust, re learn new skills.

The phrase "and i would have done it too, if it hadn't been for you meddling kids!" seems all too perfect for this moment

Spot on Truffle -

Well, I WAS going to end with Borat's song, "Throw the Jew down the well", but thought it would detract from my original point.

IMHO, the problems lie not with legislation and punishment (or the threats thereof), but education and good upbringing, which seem to have been severely 'messed about with' in recent decades. The decline into 'gossip-mongering' and the lack of true reportage by the vast majority of the media doesn't help either. Good manners and respect for others seem to be bygone attitudes, and parenting skills no longer passed down family lines. As for the public obsession with very poor role-models, as in so-called 'celebrities', further exascerbates the decline in moral standards and self-respect among the younger generations.

But, then again, I'm a cantakerous 'old git', aren't I?

Thank god the courts don't have any serious powers here.

They make enough of a mess with what they do have.