Bloody Hilarious!

Interesting comment. Whilst yesterday's teletext said "under the influence of either drugs or alcohol", that is not what has been reported today, although it seems the woman is under arrest.

Yebut it didn't work then so why should it work now? People used to get transported to Australia for nicking a sheep or poaching. Did it stop others? No is the answer you're struggling for. It's like the death penalty, never bloody well worked. Was there a huge jump in murders when it was abolished? No. In Victorian times there were areas of London that you and the police didn't venture into unless they went in force. So when was this utopian time when prisons worked and thieving shites didn't roam the streets?

But it might in the age of the welfare state, where the alternative is not starving.

Mr Broadhurst wrote: || "Brimstone" wrote || |||| Make some prisons weekend only, report after work Friday night, let |||| out to go to work and home Monday morning, then have another shift |||| weekdays only for the unemployed. ||| ||| Yup, I'd go along with that. || || Fuck it, that's three of us. Let's storm Whitehall!

That incitement could turn out to be your first strike!

"malc" wrote

1979.

Or was it earlier?

Dream on.

"Rob" wrote

I've got the Uzi and the back of crack. All I need now is a few nuns as hostages.

Slightly later, you'll remember that nice Mr Howard told us so.

On Fri, 28 Dec 2007 16:57:56 GMT, I waved a wand and this message magically appears in front of ®i©ardo:

I'll have act as a devil's advocate: It is _ILLEGAL_ for under 16s to ride a quad on the public roads, and the quad has to be taxed and insured. If not that woman driver of that Range Rover, it might have happened to someone else entirely sober.

Then who's to blame?

Discuss.

Wonder if a modern version of transportation could be used.

As everything else seems to be cheaper in the East or Far East outsource the prisons as well. pay the Siberians or the Chinese to run them. And any misbehaving to be treated as they see fit.

G.Harman

Alex Buell (Alex Buell ) gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying:

Indeed.

The fact that the sprog shouldn't have been there in the first place shouldn't affect the penalty which the woman in the R-R should face, but it bloody should play very heavily on consciences of the parents.

"Brimstone" wrote

Ah! I was away that day.

Little girl's parents might face charges now, not the other driver, who tested negative for drink and dugs, according to the article.

Anyone can make a threat of prosecution for pretty much anything. It doesn't mean a damn thing until there's an actual prosecution. In any violent incident of any kind there will be a "threat of prosecution" in that the police will take the details necessary should it be decided that it should go to court. By and large no prosecution happens unless it's pretty certain a jury will be likely to convict.

What happens is that journalists don't consider "woman clips vandal's ear" to be a news story. So they simply throw in the idea that she is "threatened with prosecution" so that morons like you will get up in arms about absolutely nothing. You won't see any later report that no prosecution happened because that won't even vaguely be news. The journalists assume you don't have sufficient attention span or intelligence to check up later to see what happened.

There are loads of these "threatened with prosecution" stories. There are next to no follow up stories describing any form of court case, from which I can only really conclude there almost never are any court cases.

You have been hoodwinked by a lazy, unscrupulous and dishonest journalist. Which is not entirely your fault. The question is whether you have the brains to learn how not to fall for the same trick again, or whether you become one of the ignorant morass of clueless fools pigging out on the swill produced by the likes of the Dail Mail. That's your choice and your responsibility.

Journalists, of course, are simply doing their jobs. They are also simply doing their jobs when they object vehemently to anyone pointing out that Nazi concentration camp guards used precisely the same defence at the Nuremburg trials. They are not in any way shape or form kicking up a completely bogus stink to protect their own interests rather than taking responsibility for their own action. At least that's not what it says in the newspapers.

Lot's of things need to be done. Unfortunately too often large numbers of idiots demand that "something must be done" on the basis of a few scare stories in the papers and an almost total absence of hard facts, and the government (and the opposition) then do something. Usually something inappropriate, irrelevant and counter productive. The newspapers will then rant about that, and the very same brainless fuckwits who demanded that "something must be done" will then start demanding that "something must be done" about the something that was done in response to their previous demands.

And so it goes on. Government by howling mobs of ignorant semi-sentient cretins.

Sorry...just having a bit of a rant.

Doesn't work. It's more expensive and leads to higher re-offending rates and indirectly to a higher crime rate. That's what all the evidence shows.

The worse you make conditions in prisons and the more severe you make the punishments the less likely you make it that courts will convict. That happens pretty much anywhere that isn't a complete police state (where nothing affects the rate of conviction since just about everyone gets convicted no matter what). Since the evidence also suggests that fear of being convicted is actually a greater deterrent to crime than the severity of sentences, then making the sentences more severe doesn't reduce crime one jot and will almost inevitably increase it.

One thing, and pretty much one thing alone, makes an instant and significant difference. That's more and better equipped police. It'll cost more, though possibly only in the short term, so it isn't going to happen to any extent.

andy ("andy" ) gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying:

And who DID stop at the scene, before going home when told the kid was fine by the father.

Lots in there about how it's illegal to ride 'em under 16 - but forgets to mention that being 100cc, the rider of these would need to be 17. That, of course, also assumes they'd passed their CBT, were insured and the bike was road legal and registered.

Looks like the initial reports that the car went into the back of 'em are also inaccurate - the kid hit an oncoming vehicle head-on... And, being behind another car, visibility of the quad would have been restricted for that oncoming driver.

Yep, with that in mind, it's time to look at charging the parents.

Beneath contempt !

Neither it was criminals.

You tried that last time and look where it got you!