|
|
Post by steppenwolf on Sept 28, 2023 7:55:06 GMT
These are two perennial problems in the UK (mostly in England). Whenever there's a terrorist attack there's a media storm for a few days and all the politicians get up and spew out their usual platitudes and pledge to stop it - and the same with knife attacks. And nothing changes.
And in all the millions of words that are wasted on these topics no one ever mentions the two obvious stand out facts - that the terrorism is almost always perpetrated by muslims and the knives are almost always wielded by blacks. Is this why nothing ever changes - because no one can talk about the obvious facts. That muslims are the terrorists and blacks are doing the stabbing.
Another simple fact is that the vast majority of crime is committed by a tiny minority of the people. The vast majority of people don't commit crime. So it would seem logical to target those that commit the crime. The police (and MI5) know perfectly well who the potential offenders are but - as I said with "profiling" on another thread - they're very reluctant to target these people.
That's why nothing changes.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dogburger on Sept 28, 2023 11:15:15 GMT
All true . Ive been of the opinion for many years that until they increase stop and search and give out custodial sentences for anyone carry weapons not a lot will change
|
|
|
|
Post by steppenwolf on Sept 28, 2023 13:05:42 GMT
Yes. I spent quite a number of years living in muslim countries (don't ask) and the one thing that really struck me - favourably, I mean - is that there was virtually no crime. Except of course crimes like visa violations and adultery and homosexuality etc etc. But basically you could go where you wanted at night and not worry about being mugged - and you could leave your car (and your house) unlocked and no one would break in. Some of the Arabs left their cars in the car park with the keys in the ignition and the engine running (to keep the car cool) and the chances of it being nicked were nil.
Why? Because the penalties for crime are draconian. I'm not suggesting that we go down the route of removing hands and limbs, but I am suggesting that the penalties for crime in the UK are feeble to non-existent. That's why many people just laugh at the law.
But the main point I'm making is that policing has lost its way because the people in charge are Leftie liberals who would be better off running the Lib Dems than being policemen. There was a police chief in the '70's who achieved huge reductions in crime by the simple expedient of targeting criminals. He knew perfectly well who the groups were who caused trouble and watched them. That's all you need to do. He didn't bother most of the law abiding public.
Unfortunately that wasn't appreciated by his bosses. It's called "Harassment". Criminals have to be free to go about their business unimpeded. Of course. So he was obviously sacked.
|
|
|
|
Post by buccaneer on Sept 29, 2023 5:41:16 GMT
Singapore has low crime and this struck me when I was there. The crime is so low because the punishment is so harsh it actually is a deterrent. The system actually works, and as a result society over there is far more cohesive and safe.
The liberal progressives have taken the UK and the West backwards where crime is concerned with their kid glove approach, and turning the perpetrator into a victim mentality.
|
|
|
|
Post by steppenwolf on Sept 29, 2023 6:04:08 GMT
I agree. But even harsher penalties are not going to be much of a deterrent when the detection rate for all crime is so low. It's strange that the detection rate has been steadily declining over the years despite the fact that the technology that the police have access to has been increasing - things like computer systems, CCTV, DNA etc.
|
|
|
|
Post by steppenwolf on Sept 29, 2023 7:32:02 GMT
However I still maintain that the way to cut crime is to target the criminals. As an example we know that most of violent crime in London is committed by black youths - and virtually all knife crime is perpetrated by blacks. The police used to routinely stop and search many more blacks than whites/Asians - for the simple reason that they're more likely to be carrying weapons, drugs etc.
Unfortunately this has been called "racist" by the blacks so the police have drastically cut stop and search (by about 75%). This has led to a massive increase in London's knife crime. Which was entirely predictable. Yet no politician is willing to say that the police are entirely justified in stopping a disproportionate number of blacks because they commit more crime.
In fact several police officers are on trial at the moment (for "gross misconduct") in stopping two black athletes. This was a routine stop and search but the two blacks were furious because they claimed it was "racially motivated". The female athlete became completely hysterical and had to be handcuffed. But the police were simply trying to do their job - for which they require the cooperation of the public - and they have received no backing from the police chiefs.
This is why crime is out of control.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on Sept 29, 2023 8:48:49 GMT
Surprised that none of the resident proggies have called in yet to remind us that it's all our fault.
|
|
|
|
Post by Hutchyns on Sept 29, 2023 9:20:55 GMT
steppenwolf Targeting the troublemakers has been advocated by both Left and Right. If I remember correctly Cameron's 'Hug A Hoodie' initiative was loosely based on smothering the troublemakers with kindness and goodies ...... Police and Social Services would know which were the difficult and trouble causing families in any particular town, and they'd be focussed on in order to more or less given them everything they wanted so that they'd turn away from crime etc ...... for instance the worst behaved kids were sent on exotic safaris etc at the taxpayers expense, all good stuff for getting the tabloids up in arms, but central to Woke thinking at the time (and maybe still is for all I know) ...... or if you think back to the Tottenham riots, go in there and instead of punishing, build the local youth recreation centres and every other facility they could want ..... rewarding bad behaviour didn't go down well with wider society but was meant to have longer term positive results. Here's a none too sharp extract from the front page of yesterday's Washington Times, emphasising focusing on singling out, even to the extent of the exact block, where your troublemakers live, or congregate, and targeting them.  |
|
|
|
Post by piglet on Sept 29, 2023 10:09:48 GMT
I have mentioned it in a previous thread but...a new set of guidelines should be drawn up for police chiefs that targets crime and criminals, its simple really. The guidelines should be do this, or get sacked, like all jobs. The guidlines would be, if a crime is committed, arrest the perpetrator. Regardless. Target low level crime, burglary, car theft, violence, drugs,...etc. Do it now.
Drugs are dealt openly in society. etc. Society is becoming a jungle, no one is safe.
|
|
|
|
Post by steppenwolf on Sept 29, 2023 12:32:13 GMT
Hutchyns, that's an interesting clip from the Washington Times. I like the concept of a "hot spot within a hotspot". The police officer that I was thinking of when I was talking about targeting criminals was Ray Mallon who adopted a zero-tolerance approach to crime. I hesitate to mention his name because all the google experts will just say he was a criminal etc etc without understanding what he did. He actually got to know the criminals and associated with them because he regarded it as his job to know what they were doing. He sent them birthday greetings - and he arranged for police cars to watch them every now and then. Which was regarded as a violation of human rights. But he reduced crime by 30%.
Nowadays our police sit in their locked police stations - doing their shopping no doubt - and don't have ay understanding of how to stop crime. And they also don't have any understanding of how to solve (what they call "detect") crime.
|
|
|
|
Post by seniorcitizen007 on Oct 8, 2023 11:29:14 GMT
The way to deal with crime is to make it a capital offence to commit a crime, even the most trivial ... when the crime is found to be premeditated.
That would solve the problem of shoplifting.
|
|
|
|
Post by steppenwolf on Oct 8, 2023 11:58:56 GMT
Very severe penalties definitely have a big deterrent effect - regardless of what the Lefties say. The proof is there in muslim countries where heavy penalties have basically eliminated most crime. It does have to be coupled with high detection rates though - and in the UK detection rates are very low.
In any case the Lefties who run the country now - especially the judiciary - would never allow it.
|
|
|
|
Post by dodgydave on Oct 8, 2023 20:45:21 GMT
The vast majority of people don't commit crime. So it would seem logical to target those that commit the crime. The police (and MI5) know perfectly well who the potential offenders are but - as I said with "profiling" on another thread - they're very reluctant to target these people. That's why nothing changes. EVERYBODY commits crimes, we just pick and choose which ones we think are ok to commit. If you disagree then you must not drive a car! They do target "potential offenders", they literally have "terrorist watch lists". The problem is we live in a free country, so you have to be caught in the act or planning the act... we cannot lock up people because we think they are dodgy. |
|
|
|
Post by steppenwolf on Oct 9, 2023 7:01:57 GMT
Apparently 27% of adults have a criminal conviction - but I don't think that includes things like speeding fines because they get removed from the record after a certain length of time. So most people have no criminal record. I've tried to find data on how crime is distributed in the population - which is more important than the average - but no luck. When I worked with the police many years ago the general consensus was that most crimes are committed by a very small minority of the population and I don't think that pattern has changed.
As for targeting potential offenders, obviously the police (and MI5) have databases of people and their criminal records. In some cases (very few) that will involve people being put under 24 watch. This is done by MI5 for the most serious terrorists but it takes 5 people for each terrorist so it's very rarely done. In general surveillance is covered by RIPA (regulation of investigatory powers) and you're limited as to what you can do.
And you can lock people up if you think they're "dodgy". All you need to do is proscribe the organisation they belong to. For example members of National Action are locked up even if they've committed no crime because of their alleged views. But if you tried to put up CCTV cameras in an area of high crime you can have problems. For example the police put up CCTV cameras in the Sparkhill area of Birmingham (because there are a lot of terrorists there) and had to take them down. I think the Guardian complained.
|
|
