Since when has the country’s flag been ‘offensive’, and to whom?
Well in order to give the maximum offence to anyone who so decries their country’s banner…………
Friday 29 April 2011
I'm Disgusted!
It’s not often that I see something that fills me with disgust but a story in Thursday’s Daily Express did just that when I read that the management of United Biscuits’ Glasgow factory had ordered staff to take down their Union Flag as it was considered ‘offensive’!
Since when has the country’s flag been ‘offensive’, and to whom?
Well in order to give the maximum offence to anyone who so decries their country’s banner…………
Since when has the country’s flag been ‘offensive’, and to whom?
Well in order to give the maximum offence to anyone who so decries their country’s banner…………
Tuesday 26 April 2011
Injunctions
The granting last week by Mr Justice Eady of a worldwide gagging order, known as a contra mundum, to protect a certain television personality from publication of details of his private life, after it emerged a woman had attempted to sell intimate photographs of him to the press, has led to disquiet in various quarters.
The latest to join the condemnation of such ‘gagging orders’ is Private Eye editor Mr Ian Hislop after Andrew Marr, the BBC's former political editor, admitted he obtained a High Court order in January 2008 to silence the press following his extra-marital affair, especially as Mr Marr had previously said that Parliament, not judges, should determine privacy law.
Last week Prime Minister David Cameron sounded a warning about the way judges, "rather than Parliament", are creating a new law of privacy:
"The judges are creating a sort of privacy law whereas what ought to happen in a parliamentary democracy is Parliament, which you elect and put there, should decide how much protection do we want for individuals and how much freedom of the press and the rest of it. So I am a little uneasy about what is happening".
Although the exact numbers are unknown (with the so-called ‘super injunction’ it is even prohibited to report that the injunction has been granted) what is clear is that a large number of celebrities, television personalities and Premier League footballers have, in recent weeks, been granted injunctions which ban newspapers and television from reporting stories about their behaviour.
Is this something we should be worried about?
Well it is extremely expensive going to the High Court for such an injunction, something simply out of reach of the ordinary citizen and it could, and is, argued that judges are effectively creating a two-tier system where the wealthy and powerful are able to buy a level of privacy not afforded to the rest of us.
Whilst there are factors of American life and jurisprudence that I am wary of one thing is certain, such moves by ‘celebrities’ to protect themselves from the consequences of their own indiscretions would be unsuccessful there.
The 1st Amendment to the United States Constitution, arguably the single most important part of the Constitution, states:
Amendment 1
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
The ability to speak one’s mind is a right that Americans take for granted, a right it would seem we are in danger of losing to an un-elected body of judges who seem determined to create a law where one does not exist.
The latest to join the condemnation of such ‘gagging orders’ is Private Eye editor Mr Ian Hislop after Andrew Marr, the BBC's former political editor, admitted he obtained a High Court order in January 2008 to silence the press following his extra-marital affair, especially as Mr Marr had previously said that Parliament, not judges, should determine privacy law.
Last week Prime Minister David Cameron sounded a warning about the way judges, "rather than Parliament", are creating a new law of privacy:
"The judges are creating a sort of privacy law whereas what ought to happen in a parliamentary democracy is Parliament, which you elect and put there, should decide how much protection do we want for individuals and how much freedom of the press and the rest of it. So I am a little uneasy about what is happening".
Although the exact numbers are unknown (with the so-called ‘super injunction’ it is even prohibited to report that the injunction has been granted) what is clear is that a large number of celebrities, television personalities and Premier League footballers have, in recent weeks, been granted injunctions which ban newspapers and television from reporting stories about their behaviour.
Is this something we should be worried about?
Well it is extremely expensive going to the High Court for such an injunction, something simply out of reach of the ordinary citizen and it could, and is, argued that judges are effectively creating a two-tier system where the wealthy and powerful are able to buy a level of privacy not afforded to the rest of us.
Whilst there are factors of American life and jurisprudence that I am wary of one thing is certain, such moves by ‘celebrities’ to protect themselves from the consequences of their own indiscretions would be unsuccessful there.
The 1st Amendment to the United States Constitution, arguably the single most important part of the Constitution, states:
Amendment 1
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
The ability to speak one’s mind is a right that Americans take for granted, a right it would seem we are in danger of losing to an un-elected body of judges who seem determined to create a law where one does not exist.
Saturday 23 April 2011
Friday 22 April 2011
Short-sighted Policies
Sadiq Khan, the Shadow Lord Chancellor and Justice Secretary, gave a speech to the Fabians and the Prison Reform Trust on Tuesday, 8 March 2011 in which he said that the drive by the government to cut prison numbers was not on the grounds of criminal justice but purely on economic principles.
Regarding rehabilitation, he went on to say that he was unsure that the government was offering any real alternative to prison and that the policies of the Ministry of Justice were founded on the short-term need to cut costs not crime and that successful rehabilitation required resources.
In his view the government is taking a very short-sighted view of the rehabilitation process and in the long run are gambling with public safety and that, as a consequence, there is a real and genuine danger that, because of their policies, crime will rise.
I tend to agree with Mr Khan, watch this space as they say.
Regarding rehabilitation, he went on to say that he was unsure that the government was offering any real alternative to prison and that the policies of the Ministry of Justice were founded on the short-term need to cut costs not crime and that successful rehabilitation required resources.
In his view the government is taking a very short-sighted view of the rehabilitation process and in the long run are gambling with public safety and that, as a consequence, there is a real and genuine danger that, because of their policies, crime will rise.
I tend to agree with Mr Khan, watch this space as they say.
Dogs and Jackboots
The headline of a certain ‘red top’ newspaper caught my eye, such that I bought the paper to see what all the fuss was about.
The report states that a lady pensioner (as if that makes any difference – are pensioners above the law?) has been issued with a £70 fixed penalty notice by ‘jobsworth’ council park wardens using ‘jackboot tactics’ for letting her dog run in a park without a lead.
Well she admits she did, and she shouldn’t have and the rules should apply to any and everyone alike.
‘Jackboot tactics’ indeed, anyone would think the wardens had shot the dog!
There must be more important things to report on than this.
The report states that a lady pensioner (as if that makes any difference – are pensioners above the law?) has been issued with a £70 fixed penalty notice by ‘jobsworth’ council park wardens using ‘jackboot tactics’ for letting her dog run in a park without a lead.
Well she admits she did, and she shouldn’t have and the rules should apply to any and everyone alike.
‘Jackboot tactics’ indeed, anyone would think the wardens had shot the dog!
There must be more important things to report on than this.
Tuesday 19 April 2011
My Ideas on Dignity
I make no apologies for once more returning to the subject of piracy after reading a report in the Daily Express (Monday 18th April 2011).
According to the political and economic intelligence group Geopolicity, and the International Maritime Bureau, a Somali pirate can now earn £48000 a year from his criminal activities (150 times the average earnings in Somalia) and that there are as many as 1500 of them operating in the Red Sea/Indian Ocean.
The number of attacks has reportedly increased from 276 in 2005 to 445 last year, with 97 off Somalia in Jan to March 2011 in which 18 vessels were seized, 340 hostages taken and 7 sailors killed.
While this carnage continues unabated ‘experts’ gather for a conference in Dubai and our navy gives captured pirates cigarettes and lessons in how to treat hostages ‘with dignity’.
The ‘dignity’ I’d give these brigands would be delivered via a 4.5” gun!
According to the political and economic intelligence group Geopolicity, and the International Maritime Bureau, a Somali pirate can now earn £48000 a year from his criminal activities (150 times the average earnings in Somalia) and that there are as many as 1500 of them operating in the Red Sea/Indian Ocean.
The number of attacks has reportedly increased from 276 in 2005 to 445 last year, with 97 off Somalia in Jan to March 2011 in which 18 vessels were seized, 340 hostages taken and 7 sailors killed.
While this carnage continues unabated ‘experts’ gather for a conference in Dubai and our navy gives captured pirates cigarettes and lessons in how to treat hostages ‘with dignity’.
The ‘dignity’ I’d give these brigands would be delivered via a 4.5” gun!
Injustice and Shame
Andrew Ryan gets 70 days in jail for burning a copy of the Koran; Emadur Choudhury is fined £50 for burning a poppy at a Remembrance Day two minutes silence.
Is it just me who feels a deep sense of injustice and shame at such a disparity of sentencing?
Is it just me who feels a deep sense of injustice and shame at such a disparity of sentencing?
Deportation and the Human Rights Act
Australia is deporting a Briton, a serial offender, back to the UK despite him having lived in Australia for more than 40 years and having a wife and three children.
We on, the other hand, can’t deport Aso Mohammed Ibrahim. an illegal immigrant, who fled the scene after killing a child when driving whilst disqualified because he has, yes a wife and two children in the UK and this would deprive him of his right to a family life under the Human Rights Act. It was reported that he is, like the UK resident of Australia, a serial offender having since racked up additional criminal convictions, including more driving offences and harassment.
It’s worth noting here that the right to a family life, as contained within Article 8 of the Act, is not an Absolute Right, it is a Qualified Right, ie one which has to be balanced against the rights of others, or the interests of society in general.
What Article 8 actually says is:
8(1). Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.
8(2).There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.
I would have thought that the deportation of such an individual was ‘in the interests of public safety, for the prevention of crime and for the protection of others’ and I find it amazing that the judges thought otherwise and it would seem treated his ‘right’ to a family life as an absolute not a conditional one.
It’s rulings like this that give the whole Human Rights argument a bad name.
We on, the other hand, can’t deport Aso Mohammed Ibrahim. an illegal immigrant, who fled the scene after killing a child when driving whilst disqualified because he has, yes a wife and two children in the UK and this would deprive him of his right to a family life under the Human Rights Act. It was reported that he is, like the UK resident of Australia, a serial offender having since racked up additional criminal convictions, including more driving offences and harassment.
It’s worth noting here that the right to a family life, as contained within Article 8 of the Act, is not an Absolute Right, it is a Qualified Right, ie one which has to be balanced against the rights of others, or the interests of society in general.
What Article 8 actually says is:
8(1). Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.
8(2).There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.
I would have thought that the deportation of such an individual was ‘in the interests of public safety, for the prevention of crime and for the protection of others’ and I find it amazing that the judges thought otherwise and it would seem treated his ‘right’ to a family life as an absolute not a conditional one.
It’s rulings like this that give the whole Human Rights argument a bad name.
How to waste £11 million
An interesting snippet from the weekend’s papers:
A project to cut the re-offending rate for criminals jailed for up to one year has cost £11 million and has, it was reported, been ‘disappointing’ and has had no impact on re-offending rates. Those targeted by the scheme have shown a 42.4% re-offending rate, against a rate of 41.6% for those not given this special help - £11 million for a worse result!
Some people seem unable to grasp the simple fact we face in court every day, you can’t force rehabilitation on those who don’t want to be rehabilitated.
A project to cut the re-offending rate for criminals jailed for up to one year has cost £11 million and has, it was reported, been ‘disappointing’ and has had no impact on re-offending rates. Those targeted by the scheme have shown a 42.4% re-offending rate, against a rate of 41.6% for those not given this special help - £11 million for a worse result!
Some people seem unable to grasp the simple fact we face in court every day, you can’t force rehabilitation on those who don’t want to be rehabilitated.
Wednesday 13 April 2011
Law and Order
As I’ve written before, we are seeing more and more Poles and other eastern Europeans in court, but it is worrying, although hardly surprising, that APCO, the Association of Chief Police Officers, reports a disturbing trend that is becoming evident regarding crime in the UK.
More than 500 crimes a week are reported as being committed by EU migrants with Poles, Lithuanians and Romanians between them committing over 15,000 crimes in 2010.
There may be some benefit to the UK economy to be gained from this ‘economic migration’ but it seems the downside is the importation of cultures whose respect for Law and Order is considerably different from our own.
More than 500 crimes a week are reported as being committed by EU migrants with Poles, Lithuanians and Romanians between them committing over 15,000 crimes in 2010.
There may be some benefit to the UK economy to be gained from this ‘economic migration’ but it seems the downside is the importation of cultures whose respect for Law and Order is considerably different from our own.
Burkas and Bans
So the ban on the burka, and other ‘full-face’ coverings, came into force in France yesterday.
I’ve no doubt that France, with its strict secular tradition, will make it work so would it work in the UK, and should it be tried?
Muslims are far more militant here than in France despite their far larger Muslim population, which was evidenced by a small demonstration in central Paris and a far larger one outside the French Embassy in London.
Is this because French Muslims embrace the ethos of the French Republic whilst many UK Muslims seem to want a form of separatism, both religious and secular?
But do we want to dictate what a woman can wear? One person’s freedom can be another’s tyranny and we need to ask ourselves what a free society actually means. Yes the burka and such like can appear threatening, and it is doubtless ‘un-British’, but is that reason enough?
I’ve no doubt that France, with its strict secular tradition, will make it work so would it work in the UK, and should it be tried?
Muslims are far more militant here than in France despite their far larger Muslim population, which was evidenced by a small demonstration in central Paris and a far larger one outside the French Embassy in London.
Is this because French Muslims embrace the ethos of the French Republic whilst many UK Muslims seem to want a form of separatism, both religious and secular?
But do we want to dictate what a woman can wear? One person’s freedom can be another’s tyranny and we need to ask ourselves what a free society actually means. Yes the burka and such like can appear threatening, and it is doubtless ‘un-British’, but is that reason enough?
Monday 11 April 2011
Pirates Again
An article in the Sunday Express (10th April 2011) caught my eye regarding the freeing of Somali pirates by the Royal Navy.
According to the author, Jane Clinton, 700 pirates were caught and released in the first half of last year and that in February HMS Cornwall seized seventeen pirates armed with AK47 assault rifles and grenade launchers.
After freeing their five hostages the pirates were given a free meal, halal of course, a health check and then released to continue their barbaric pursuits.
The Navy is not to blame for this farcical situation; they are acting under Rules of Engagement set down by HM Government.
The incident is to be broadcast on BBC Radio 4 at 8pm on Tuesday.
It’s little wonder that Jan Kopernicki, the former head of shipping at Shell, says that “It is essential that governments authorise the military to take determined action.”
While almost 800 people are being held hostage by the Somali bandits all the UK Foreign Office can say is that it is “appalling” and “unacceptable” – so do something about it!
According to the author, Jane Clinton, 700 pirates were caught and released in the first half of last year and that in February HMS Cornwall seized seventeen pirates armed with AK47 assault rifles and grenade launchers.
After freeing their five hostages the pirates were given a free meal, halal of course, a health check and then released to continue their barbaric pursuits.
The Navy is not to blame for this farcical situation; they are acting under Rules of Engagement set down by HM Government.
The incident is to be broadcast on BBC Radio 4 at 8pm on Tuesday.
It’s little wonder that Jan Kopernicki, the former head of shipping at Shell, says that “It is essential that governments authorise the military to take determined action.”
While almost 800 people are being held hostage by the Somali bandits all the UK Foreign Office can say is that it is “appalling” and “unacceptable” – so do something about it!
The Decision to Prosecute
Trials Court last week and a lady charged with failing to comply with a red traffic light.
Two police constables claimed that she’d failed to stop when the lights were clearly at red, something she strenuously denied. She’d been offered a Fixed Penalty, £60 and 3 points on her licence, but had chosen to come to court and argue her case before us.
We did wonder why she was risking a large fine, paying for a solicitor and the payment of court costs if found guilty, when she had a clean licence and the 3 points would be no great hardship.
The two police officers gave their evidence and it was only under cross examination that it transpired that one of them was an officer under training, specifically in the issuing of Fixed Penalty Notices, and that he had a certain quota to reach in order to qualify.
We had no evidence to support a suspicion that a lone lady driver had been deliberately targeted in order that the requisite number of tickets could be issued that day, but we were sufficiently impressed with the quality and clarity of her evidence, and her apparent sincerity, to acquit her and order that her legal costs be met from Public Funds.
I’m sure the fact that she was black had no bearing on the decision to prosecute her.
Two police constables claimed that she’d failed to stop when the lights were clearly at red, something she strenuously denied. She’d been offered a Fixed Penalty, £60 and 3 points on her licence, but had chosen to come to court and argue her case before us.
We did wonder why she was risking a large fine, paying for a solicitor and the payment of court costs if found guilty, when she had a clean licence and the 3 points would be no great hardship.
The two police officers gave their evidence and it was only under cross examination that it transpired that one of them was an officer under training, specifically in the issuing of Fixed Penalty Notices, and that he had a certain quota to reach in order to qualify.
We had no evidence to support a suspicion that a lone lady driver had been deliberately targeted in order that the requisite number of tickets could be issued that day, but we were sufficiently impressed with the quality and clarity of her evidence, and her apparent sincerity, to acquit her and order that her legal costs be met from Public Funds.
I’m sure the fact that she was black had no bearing on the decision to prosecute her.
Thursday 7 April 2011
Fairies In Your garden
I see that Ken Clarke, the Justice Secretary (there’s a joke in there somewhere) is being hammered again, this time by senior members of the judiciary, over his plans to cut jail terms in half for those criminals who plead guilty.
The example given by some of the most senior judges in the land is that someone sentenced to three years imprisonment will serve a maximum of only nine months; yes that’s not a misprint – nine months! Three years cut in half is eighteen months and automatic release after serving half the sentence means out to commit further offences in just nine months, less any time spent on remand.
Where a persistent offender, and/or ‘bail bandit’, is remanded in custody awaiting trial or sentence, which could easily be two months, that time will be taken off his sentence, thus the nine months comes down to seven, or even less if made subject to a home curfew.
So a sentence for, say, repeated aggravated burglary, which merits a three year jail sentence, in reality amounts to a little over one sixth of that.
Ken Clarke calls this justice (told you there was a joke in this didn’t I?) and the Ministry of Justice (another joke?) says this measure will reduce crime!
Well if you believe that then there must be fairies at the bottom of your garden.
The example given by some of the most senior judges in the land is that someone sentenced to three years imprisonment will serve a maximum of only nine months; yes that’s not a misprint – nine months! Three years cut in half is eighteen months and automatic release after serving half the sentence means out to commit further offences in just nine months, less any time spent on remand.
Where a persistent offender, and/or ‘bail bandit’, is remanded in custody awaiting trial or sentence, which could easily be two months, that time will be taken off his sentence, thus the nine months comes down to seven, or even less if made subject to a home curfew.
So a sentence for, say, repeated aggravated burglary, which merits a three year jail sentence, in reality amounts to a little over one sixth of that.
Ken Clarke calls this justice (told you there was a joke in this didn’t I?) and the Ministry of Justice (another joke?) says this measure will reduce crime!
Well if you believe that then there must be fairies at the bottom of your garden.
Piracy
The murder of four innocent Americans by Somali pirates must surly provide the final justification for the western nations, especially America, France and Great Britain, to start dealing with these brigands in the only way they’ll understand – with overwhelming force.
Until we put aside our concern for their human rights, and the territorial integrity of Somalia, an un-governed lawless place, and start administering summary justice, the execution of the pirates and the destruction of their boats and bases, this killing of innocent people will simply escalate out of control.
It cannot be outside the expertise of the American Delta Force, the British Special Boat Squadron and the SAS combined, to storm and destroy the pirate’s bases in Somalia - and if Somalia doesn’t like it well tough – they shouldn’t provide a safe haven for thieves and murderers.
As far as international law is concerned piracy is considered to represent the earliest invocation of the concept of universal jurisdiction and those committing thefts on the high seas, inhibiting trade, and endangering maritime communication are considered by sovereign states to be hostis humani generis (enemies of humanity).
The above may sound both harsh and reactionary but we know from experience that the paying of ransoms, which is blackmail by any other name, merely fuels the fire and encourages more brigands to join the pirates and reap these rich rewards, while at the same time financing more pirate ships and weapons. There is no incentive for the pirates to stop, if caught they are simply released to continue their lawless ways, and there is no authority within their own land, wracked as it is by civil war and in the grip of War Lords, to enforce any code of civilised behaviour. In such a situation the western nations have the right to protect themselves, their ships, trade and citizens from such people and ensure the freedom of the seas.
To quote from the Royal Naval Prayer:
Preserve us from the dangers of the sea and from the violence of the enemy, that we may be…………………… a security for such as pass on the seas upon their lawful occasions.
Is it not time to put these words into action?
Until we put aside our concern for their human rights, and the territorial integrity of Somalia, an un-governed lawless place, and start administering summary justice, the execution of the pirates and the destruction of their boats and bases, this killing of innocent people will simply escalate out of control.
It cannot be outside the expertise of the American Delta Force, the British Special Boat Squadron and the SAS combined, to storm and destroy the pirate’s bases in Somalia - and if Somalia doesn’t like it well tough – they shouldn’t provide a safe haven for thieves and murderers.
As far as international law is concerned piracy is considered to represent the earliest invocation of the concept of universal jurisdiction and those committing thefts on the high seas, inhibiting trade, and endangering maritime communication are considered by sovereign states to be hostis humani generis (enemies of humanity).
The above may sound both harsh and reactionary but we know from experience that the paying of ransoms, which is blackmail by any other name, merely fuels the fire and encourages more brigands to join the pirates and reap these rich rewards, while at the same time financing more pirate ships and weapons. There is no incentive for the pirates to stop, if caught they are simply released to continue their lawless ways, and there is no authority within their own land, wracked as it is by civil war and in the grip of War Lords, to enforce any code of civilised behaviour. In such a situation the western nations have the right to protect themselves, their ships, trade and citizens from such people and ensure the freedom of the seas.
To quote from the Royal Naval Prayer:
Preserve us from the dangers of the sea and from the violence of the enemy, that we may be…………………… a security for such as pass on the seas upon their lawful occasions.
Is it not time to put these words into action?
It's Never All Bad
It was ‘Traffic Court’ yesterday, the first one I’ve done for some time, and a disturbing trend was evident, that of the foreign national, uninsured, with no driving licence and unable to speak English.
Young men in the main, and predominately from Eastern Europe, they exhibited little or no understanding of the traffic laws in the UK and the requirement to hold a driving licence, to pass a driving test and to obtain insurance.
Without exception they all claimed to be without a job, and mostly ineligible for State Benefit, yet they could afford, on this non-existent income, to both buy and run a motor car!
I can only assume that those we saw are working in the ‘black economy’ and whether the imposition of penalty points on their non-existent driving licences, and in some cases a disqualification from driving, will have any modifying effect on their driving behaviour only time will tell, but I’m not holding my breath.
On the plus side they were unfailingly polite, deferential to a degree I rarely see in court these days, and accepted without question the court’s judgement; they must be doing something right in Poland!
Young men in the main, and predominately from Eastern Europe, they exhibited little or no understanding of the traffic laws in the UK and the requirement to hold a driving licence, to pass a driving test and to obtain insurance.
Without exception they all claimed to be without a job, and mostly ineligible for State Benefit, yet they could afford, on this non-existent income, to both buy and run a motor car!
I can only assume that those we saw are working in the ‘black economy’ and whether the imposition of penalty points on their non-existent driving licences, and in some cases a disqualification from driving, will have any modifying effect on their driving behaviour only time will tell, but I’m not holding my breath.
On the plus side they were unfailingly polite, deferential to a degree I rarely see in court these days, and accepted without question the court’s judgement; they must be doing something right in Poland!
Tuesday 5 April 2011
The Weekend News
Over the weekend I’ve read various newspaper reports which illustrate the strange state of modern British society.
Adam Pardoe breaks into the home of 70 year old woman, hits her twice in the face with a concrete block before stealing money and a gold watch just four weeks after receiving a community sentence for burglary, and I’ll bet the Pre-Sentence Report prepared by the Probation Service at the time said the risk of reconviction was low.
The shooting of five year old Thusha Kamaleswaran has revealed some insights into the gang culture in south London. According to a news article in the Sunday Express, an eighteen year old girl has, as part of her college studies, made a video called ‘Pushed To The Trigger’, which allegedly shows 8 and 9 year olds ‘rapping’ about ‘I’ll shoot my gun’. If there’s any truth in this report then I’d be interested in what the justification is for any college encouraging the acceptance of gun violence, for I’m damned if I can think of any.
On another topic altogether, it’s been reported that 400 Community Support Offices issued just 19 penalty notices in three years, as if this is evidence of their ineffectiveness. The Police, including CSOs, are there as much as anything else, as a visible deterrence to the commission of crime, not to dish out penalty notices like confetti at a wedding. One suspects the same reporter would be accusing these same CSOs of over-reaction if they’d issued 1900 PNs over the same period.
Some folk just can’t win.
Adam Pardoe breaks into the home of 70 year old woman, hits her twice in the face with a concrete block before stealing money and a gold watch just four weeks after receiving a community sentence for burglary, and I’ll bet the Pre-Sentence Report prepared by the Probation Service at the time said the risk of reconviction was low.
The shooting of five year old Thusha Kamaleswaran has revealed some insights into the gang culture in south London. According to a news article in the Sunday Express, an eighteen year old girl has, as part of her college studies, made a video called ‘Pushed To The Trigger’, which allegedly shows 8 and 9 year olds ‘rapping’ about ‘I’ll shoot my gun’. If there’s any truth in this report then I’d be interested in what the justification is for any college encouraging the acceptance of gun violence, for I’m damned if I can think of any.
On another topic altogether, it’s been reported that 400 Community Support Offices issued just 19 penalty notices in three years, as if this is evidence of their ineffectiveness. The Police, including CSOs, are there as much as anything else, as a visible deterrence to the commission of crime, not to dish out penalty notices like confetti at a wedding. One suspects the same reporter would be accusing these same CSOs of over-reaction if they’d issued 1900 PNs over the same period.
Some folk just can’t win.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)