If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Should Blunket be able to control police chief's?
BillieTheBot
Posts: 8,721 Bot
Is it right that Blunket has the right to sack any police chief?
He seems to be getting more and more authorotarian and far right wing in terms of crime and punishment.
He seems to be getting more and more authorotarian and far right wing in terms of crime and punishment.
Beep boop. I'm a bot.
0
Comments
Do you understand the encroachments Blunket has made on the right to trial, inocent till proven guilty and other basic human rights?
When you get a right wing tosspiece like the S*n singing the praises of a Labour Home Secretary so often and freely, you know there must be something very wrong with the man.
This case is yet another example of knee-jerk reaction and exceeding one's powers in order to appeal to the populace and the Murdoch press. It is not the role of the Home Secretary to sack police chiefs (or increase jail sentences of inmates and otherwise interfere with the judicial process- something that Home Secretaries from both parties have taken a liking to).
I must say his comments about that man convicted during Euro 2004 were classic. 'I want to nail him'.
Given that the man in question was given no legal advice, the court was held in Portugese and he wasnt translated to and the trial lasted all of about 20 mins.
A shockingly unfair trial and for Blunket to wade in with comments like his is foul.
On the one hand it predictably and pathetically adopts the full knee-jerk reaction ("Hang paedos!" "Lock criminals up and throw away the key!") without even attempting to comprehend the causes of crime, and on the other hand it supports other types of crime, such as the right to murder gypsy children if they enter your property or the right to drive at any speed one fancies without being punished for it.
First of all the British Crime Survey takes into account non-reporting and they say that crime is falling.
Secondly just locking people up just doesnt work, its not as simple as that.
But we're not, the NHS is improving, school standards are going up, personal wealth is going up, crime is falling....we havent had it this good for at the very least 15 years.
Niether or us are in any way defending the actions of criminals, where did we say that?
The National Crime Survey takes into account non-reporting because it contacts people directly to ask if they have been a victim of crime. It is externaly audited and is seen as reliable.
I'm not believing scum bags, I am taking into account enternally audited figures which are backed up.
I'm sorry you have had personal experience of crime, so have I not so long ago. But I still firmly believe that crime is going down.
Of course there are daily horrible crimes, yes, and of course you can always produce a long list of those who have been victims. But thats not really how statistics work is it.
Statistically people are less likely to be a victim of crime now than they have been in a long while.
The amount we spend on prison is stupidly high, the re-offending rates are horrific.
If we put anywhere near the money we spend on prisons onto try to prevent crime we could make a huge impact.
But then prison goes down well with the electorate and trying to help young offenders doesnt.
Case study number one: A 16 year old child is summarily executed by a gunshot to the back for the "hideous" crime of breaking and entering. The perpetrator took aim and shot to kill and by all accounts it is a cold blooded murder. But thanks to a hate campaign by the right wing tabloid press the murderer has his sentence commuted to manslaughter and freed after only 4 years.
Who was thinking about the victim and his family? Certainly not the S*n and the Daily HateMail!
Case study number two: a small child has been run down and killed by yet another speeding driver. The driver was driving at more than 40 mph in a 30mph limit but knew there were no cameras in the area. Thanks to the endless campaign by the S*n and the HateMail to "stop persecuting drivers" :rolleyes: , further deployment of speed cameras has stopped so Middle England can drive at any speed it deems convenient.
Who is thinking of the 1,400 or so victims who die every year on our roads due to speeding? Certainly not the Scum and the BlackMail!
No, but your missing the point, locking them up does NOT work.
Most dangerous criminals are desperate people, they dont care about prison because they either a) dont think they'll get caught or b) need something badly enough to risk it what ever happens.
So what difference does it make to them whether the sentance is 5, 10 or 100 years.
And I am not sticking up for them. I dont want to spend money on criminals, I resent my tax money going on them. BUT I know, that treatment for addicts and help for offenders is far more cost effective than just locking them up.
Its simple really.
I am suggesting that the evidence shows that if you help drug addicts and young offenders there will be much less crime.
So you wouldnt have to pay for them all to be 'locked up'.
So are you in favor of the death penalty for breaking and entering then?
What is the difference between Tony Martins Law and the death penalty for all those guilty of breaking and entering?
And of course offenders need to 'pay' for their crimes, but pure punishment alone doesnt bring down crime.
Are you advocating the death penalty for burglary? Is that what you're saying? That practically anyone who commits a crime should be killed?
Stop making things up.
Cameras don't make distinctions between day and night. Cameras don't flash at 31, 32 or even 34 mph in most cases. Cameras flash at those who are going at more than 10% + 2mph. That's > 35mph in a 30 mph area, > 46mph in a 40 mph area, > 57mph in a 50 mph area and so on.
If you think that's tough, well don't break the law and you won't get fined. Precisely what you and people like you like to say to others...
Stop making things up. At no point has the government or "the left" (whoever they might be) said or thought victims of crime don't reserve support or recognition.
Give us some evidence that the government does not think of the victims then.
They shouldn't insult me, so presumably it's okay to murder them, correct?
Nobody has the right to commit a crime- that's why it's illegal. Nobody has the right to insult you. Nobody has the right to punch you in the face. Nobody has the right to steal your wallet.
SO, WOULD YOU ADVOCATE SHOOTING SOMEONE DEAD BECAUSE THEY INSULT YOU, OR BECAUSE THEY'VE NICKED YOUR WALLET???
Can't you really tell the difference?
Tony Martin was not in danger. Tony Martin was found to carefully take aim and shoot at the kid as he was running away. That is that the court found. That is why his original convinction was murder.
And no, that's not from the Guardian. That is from countless media outlets both left and right wing.
So what do you have to say now?
So do you admit now that Tony Martin is a murderer? Or do you still believe that a person deserves to die for burglary?
If you or your family are being threatened then I don't have a problem. But to say that anyone who steals or attempts to steal should be killed is fucking disgusting and atrocious.
So I put it to you again: should we give the death penalty to common thieves and pickpockets?
Stealing something or burgling a house, repugnant crimes as they are, do not merit being murdered for.
In the Tony Martin's Case he delibrately used his gun which he SHOULD NOT OF HAVED and SHOT SOMEONE IN THE BACK WHEN HE WAS RUNNING AWAY.
He was very lucky in my opinion
Yes I have read many column inches from the tabloids and the broadsheets regarding Tony Martin. To this day the aformentioned papers are still spitting blood about the fact that their hero was even imprisoned for one day. Even though they're fully aware of the situation in which he shot the kid.
You make of it what you want- I think the message from these papers is clear...
Would you rather see children killed by speeding motorists or see some speed cameras on the roads?
As others have stated, Blunkett is already far to right wing and has eroded many civil rights, i dont see how you can think this is a good thing.
You beleive everything AN AUSTRALIAN AMERICAN says out of his arsehole. I dont think he should have any role in deciding what should be in the British press personally.
A Crime is a crime lukesh, Speeding is a crime.
And your last thing, what a stupid thing to say :mad: You are truely messed up in the head.:mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: