In message , Sacha
writes

I'm getting quite irritable, not to say bloody annoyed, at reading
criticism of the police handling of the current riots. Firstly,
whatever they do, they seem to be damned by doing too much by one side
or not enough by another. Secondly, people complain about not seeing
enough police when 'incidents' occur. Well, hello, moan about this in
'peacetime' and not when it's too late and moan to the politicians who
advocate soft sentencing and going easy on users of drugs.

...And those politicians who slash public services including the police
budgets?
--
Gordon H
Remove "invalid" to reply

Baz wrote in :


Sacha,
According to what was said in court he was given 2 years in 2008 for
Actual Bodily Harm. During his sentence he was moved to an open prison
because of good behaviour. He later earned the right to have a few days
at home with the promise of him returning to prison to complete his
sentence. He didn't return.
I was talking to an official at court and he said that a 2 year sentence
means 10 months of actual prison. The reasons I didn't quite understand
but a sentence is cut in half, in this case to 1 year and he would have
the last 2 months at home with electronic tagging. A bit confusing, but
that is what I understood.
I really hope you understand that I am not criticising the police, far
from it. The police caught him and it is the do-gooders we call
magistrates who are clearly at fault. They think leniency is going to
work for a very very nasty individual who has easilly fooled them with a
bit of charm and a sob story.

Baz


To add to the list of crimes, and there are so many,
Glastonbury festival last year he posed as an official and charged campers
for pitching, sold drugs and was a general fraudster.
In Dover he sold him and his familly as V.A.T officers or something and
stole vehicles, tobacco and booze AFTER the customs and exise had validated
the rightful owners right to it.

DNA is a powerful thing and the whole lot of them have left it for the
forensic people to have a field day. Finger prints have proved to be the
first line of evidence, the matching of DNA(a long wait) and finger prints
(immediate) will eventually prove just what this lot have done. I hope it
wont be long before they all of them are behind bars.

I thought about giving his name out, here, but there must be many with an
identical name and respected, so that would not be ok.

The police will not let me have access to date of birth etc. in case of
reprisals. As If.

When, or if, the scroat is found guilty this is when we will see just how
much we can take of this crass regard of protection from offenders.

Baz

In message , Gordon H
writes
In message , Sacha
writes
It would be an amazement with me. I've rarely had a garage in any
house but when I have it's always been too full of 'stuff' to hold a
car. ;-)

In that case it is not a garage, it is a junk store. ;-)
Yes,- I've seen inside some of my neighbours' "garages".

The space is much too useful to fill up with a car :-)

Anyway, like lots of people we have two cars so one would still be on
the drive.

I believe that cars which are not garaged should attract a much higher
insurance premium.

It's not a great difference - about £20 a year (or a £200 or so premium)
--
Chris French

In message , Gordon H
writes

On more that one occasion where car theft has occurred within sight of
my property I have been asked "Did you get anything on your cameras"?

My answer is sorry, - they cover only my own property, to have a camera
covering public space you require authorisation.


Not correct (assuming they are on a domestic property)

http://www.ico.gov.uk/Global/faqs/da...public.aspx#f8
9CC45B4-580B-4FCD-98A2-278DE2D7446C
--
Chris French

"Gordon H" wrote in message
I believe that cars which are not garaged should attract a much higher
insurance premium.
--
Gordon H

I think they already do.

"Martin" wrote in message
...

Nowadays there is no room for anything. There were also studies that
showed that corrosion was less when cars were parked on the street
rather than in an unheated garage.
I just traded in a Nissan car that was almost 16 years old and had
zero corrosion.
--

My car is 14 years old, I keep it on my drive (no garage) and it has no
corrosion at all. It's a small Citreon and I've had it for 7 years,
incredibly reliable. Starts first time, every time.
I keep it well serviced and I bought it from a 90 year old man who had
hardly used it.
I always like to buy my cars like this. Old cars from old people are
perfect.
Doesn't work if you want to show off with the latest number plate though;-)

Tina

"Martin" wrote in message
...
Amongst root causes are no hope of employment in some areas, the
opportunity to steal things that rioters could never afford and
"having fun".
--

Martin

Whilst agreeing with the above, I believe you haven't gone far enough.
Before the "no hope " stage arrives, people - i.e. children/youths need to
have been taught respect for their elders.This goes even further back to
their school days where lack of discipline was / is rife.

The abolishment of corporal punishment was the start of the rot. No one
ever wanted to "beat up" children for misbehaving, but a short sharp shock
worked wonders Rmember Willy Whitlelaw's proposal which got nowhere ?

In retrospect we can appreciate the wisdow of our own education, I assume we
are all well behaved pillars of society !

Bill

On 09/08/2011 17:39, in article , "Sacha"
wrote:


I appreciate what you're saying, Kay but Harry's remark was not
inclined towards working for the benefit of the community as a whole,
but more to hoping he could fool the trouble into becoming someone
else's problem. If there's a problem area, all the people in that
street, or on that estate, working *together* may produce a result.
"Pull up the ladder, Jack" won't do it. AIUI, there are areas where
crime has been pretty bad but where determined residents have managed
to clean it up and get their lives back in their own hands again.

But have they got rid of the crime or merely displaced it? Changing the
subject - we have a problem (as most places do) of where do older teenagers
go when they want to get together with their mates? They don't want to be
sitting under the eye of their parents - and, indeed, parents, especially
those without large houses, don't really want half a dozen noisy young males
in the house. So residents complain, and they get displaced from Morrisons
car park - but they haven't decided to stay at home, instead they've moved
to the field opposite the sheltered bungalows.

On 09/08/2011 17:34, in article , "Sacha"
wrote:

The people in these riots and the man who attacked your
property aren't poor, they're not in real need of food or shelter which
IS poverty, they're just destructive or jealous or lazy or all those
things.

There is the concept of relative poverty - being unable to share in the
lifestyle that all around you take for granted, or seeing any means to do
so.

But there's no excuse for looting and violence.

"Sacha" wrote in message
...
On 2011-08-10 10:39:20 +0100, Kay said:




On 09/08/2011 17:39, in article , "Sacha"
wrote:


I appreciate what you're saying, Kay but Harry's remark was not
inclined towards working for the benefit of the community as a whole,
but more to hoping he could fool the trouble into becoming someone
else's problem. If there's a problem area, all the people in that
street, or on that estate, working *together* may produce a result.
"Pull up the ladder, Jack" won't do it. AIUI, there are areas where
crime has been pretty bad but where determined residents have managed
to clean it up and get their lives back in their own hands again.

But have they got rid of the crime or merely displaced it? Changing the
subject - we have a problem (as most places do) of where do older
teenagers
go when they want to get together with their mates? They don't want to be
sitting under the eye of their parents - and, indeed, parents, especially
those without large houses, don't really want half a dozen noisy young
males
in the house. So residents complain, and they get displaced from
Morrisons
car park - but they haven't decided to stay at home, instead they've
moved
to the field opposite the sheltered bungalows.

There are so many underlying problems leading to this sort of behaviour
that at present, I think people can only tackle what affects *them*. The
wider picture and - perhaps - a solution may then start to emerge. But
the first step seems to be to show people like Baz's criminal that
criminal acts won't be tolerated by anyone in that
street/estate/community.

I think what an experience such as Baz's shows us is that the softly
softly approach by politicians, who then instruct the police and the
judiciary, simply doesn't work. Back to the days of "if you can't do the
time, don't do the crime". As to what is done about youths who kicked
around, bored and so forth, I wish I had an answer. Youth Clubs used to
be a solution but no doubt these are now deeply uncool.

But it seems to me that there are two answers to this, firstly, parents
should always know where thir children are, who they're with and what time
they are expected home. And secondly, children have to learn their place
on the 'ladder' - being 'bored' or whatever the excuse is, does not give
them the right to be a damned nuisance to others. Perhaps *their* parents
have to get together and organise themselves and their children into areas
where they can enjoy each other's company without upsettinig neighbours.
I know this sounds simplistic and perhaps, idealistic but until parents do
start to demonstrate concern, interest and that actions have consequences,
why should their children think otherwise? I'm talking about a return to
basic parenting where every family has to take responsibility for how
children are raised and for teaching them how to live within the wider
world without being a pain to everyone around them. We can all only do
that in our own small way, starting with ensuring those who cause nuisance
or crime are dealt with.
--
Sacha


With so many marriages, if they bother to get married in the first place,
breaking up and couples flitting from couple to couple, how do you expect
the 'Family Home' to be a Unit? Brothers and Sisters might not even know
which 'Father' is which.

As a family which has stuck together for over 54 years, I still have the
same wife, and all of the children, all four of them, have the same Mother
and Father, I am sometimes not at all amazed that the 'Family Unit' has gone
out of the window.

How many readers of this newsgroup have the same partner they started out
with over 30 years ago?

Mike

--

....................................

Don't take life too seriously, you'll never get out alive.

....................................

In article ,
Kay wrote:

Everyone knows someone with more or better than they've got. I don't
see that as an excuse. If people want more and better, find a legal
way of acquiring it.

It's not an excuse. When even Morrisons has ceased giving out applications,
and a well qualified young man feels himself lucky to have secured a
temporary part time summer job at Burger King, then the law abiding young
can be forgiven for sinking into depression, and the less law abiding are
more likely to go on the rampage. But criminals are made not born. Ensuring
a fair distribution of the wealth of society is self-interest.

If that were all, the issue would be easy, but some of us started
predicting this particular social collapse 40 years ago and more.
I have known that major riots were certain for 20 years, and why,
and I am no expert on this area. The only decent analysis in the
press that I have seen is on Al Jazeera's Web site:

http://english.aljazeera.net/

Look at the opinion pieces. There was also one in the Independent,
by someone who runs youth clubs in the areas where this started.
We KNOW why this was an explosion waiting for a spark - and even,
heaven help us, how to stop it recurring - but curing decades of
harm is not quick, painless or cheap. And, no, the solution is
NOT a return to the bureaucratic welfare state.

Alternatively, if you know any competent social psychologists or
social historians, they will say the same. But the foreigners
(from the USA, not Europe) who rule our rulers have been pushing
the Tea Party agenda (and propaganda) on us since they started to
get control 30 years ago.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

Everyone knows someone with more or better than they've got. I don't
see that as an excuse. If people want more and better, find a legal
way of acquiring it.

It's not an excuse. When even Morrisons has ceased giving out applications,
and a well qualified young man feels himself lucky to have secured a
temporary part time summer job at Burger King, then the law abiding young
can be forgiven for sinking into depression, and the less law abiding are
more likely to go on the rampage. But criminals are made not born. Ensuring
a fair distribution of the wealth of society is self-interest.

On 10/08/2011 12:01, in article , "Sacha"
wrote:


I think what an experience such as Baz's shows us is that the softly
softly approach by politicians, who then instruct the police and the
judiciary, simply doesn't work. Back to the days of "if you can't do
the time, don't do the crime".

One-third of young men born in 1953 had acquired a conviction for a
relatively serious crime before the age of 30 (and we're not talking driving
offences here). But two-thirds of convictions were acquired by the same 6%
of offenders.

So the trick is how to identify the 6% of the 30% and deal with them
effectively, and not take action that will turn the 94% into unemployable
ex-cons rather than useful contributing members of society..

As to what is done about youths who
kicked around, bored and so forth, I wish I had an answer. Youth Clubs
used to be a solution but no doubt these are now deeply uncool.

And those that exist are having their funding reduced.

But it seems to me that there are two answers to this, firstly,
parents should always know where thir children are, who they're with
and what time they are expected home. And secondly, children have to
learn their place on the 'ladder' - being 'bored' or whatever the
excuse is, does not give them the right to be a damned nuisance to
others.

It seems to me that worthy ideals of giving our children learning
opportunities, coupled with probably over-exaggerated fears of paedophilia
and rather more justified fears of traffic, has led to a generation which
has lost the ability to cope with boredom. Entertainment has to be provided
by someone else.

Also, we have lost our tolerance for children. When I was being brought up,
the accepted idea was that you did most things as a family, and children
were expected to behave quietly in other people's houses. Then we moved into
an era when it became expected that children were not included in an
invitation, and you found a babysitter. So the need for children to behave
nicely lessened.

I'm talking about a return to
basic parenting where every family has to take responsibility for how
children are raised and for teaching them how to live within the wider
world without being a pain to everyone around them.

We are are more fragmented and mobile society - we no longer have the role
models. The first baby I ever held in my arms was my own. You can see all
around you that many people lack parenting skills - parents themselves need
help.

"Kay" wrote in message
...



On 10/08/2011 12:01, in article , "Sacha"
wrote:


I think what an experience such as Baz's shows us is that the softly
softly approach by politicians, who then instruct the police and the
judiciary, simply doesn't work. Back to the days of "if you can't do
the time, don't do the crime".

One-third of young men born in 1953 had acquired a conviction for a
relatively serious crime before the age of 30 (and we're not talking
driving
offences here). But two-thirds of convictions were acquired by the same 6%
of offenders.

So the trick is how to identify the 6% of the 30% and deal with them
effectively, and not take action that will turn the 94% into unemployable
ex-cons rather than useful contributing members of society..

As to what is done about youths who
kicked around, bored and so forth, I wish I had an answer. Youth Clubs
used to be a solution but no doubt these are now deeply uncool.

And those that exist are having their funding reduced.

But it seems to me that there are two answers to this, firstly,
parents should always know where thir children are, who they're with
and what time they are expected home. And secondly, children have to
learn their place on the 'ladder' - being 'bored' or whatever the
excuse is, does not give them the right to be a damned nuisance to
others.

It seems to me that worthy ideals of giving our children learning
opportunities, coupled with probably over-exaggerated fears of paedophilia
and rather more justified fears of traffic, has led to a generation which
has lost the ability to cope with boredom. Entertainment has to be
provided
by someone else.

Also, we have lost our tolerance for children. When I was being brought
up,
the accepted idea was that you did most things as a family, and children
were expected to behave quietly in other people's houses. Then we moved
into
an era when it became expected that children were not included in an
invitation, and you found a babysitter. So the need for children to behave
nicely lessened.

I'm talking about a return to
basic parenting where every family has to take responsibility for how
children are raised and for teaching them how to live within the wider
world without being a pain to everyone around them.

We are are more fragmented and mobile society - we no longer have the role
models. The first baby I ever held in my arms was my own. You can see all
around you that many people lack parenting skills - parents themselves
need
help.


""parents themselves need help.""


Parents themselves need help to stay together. Too many divorces and split
marriages.

Mike


--

....................................

Don't take life too seriously, you'll never get out alive.

....................................

On 10/08/2011 09:41, in article ,
"Bill Grey" wrote:

The abolishment of corporal punishment was the start of the rot.

I can't agree with that. I know people who started life as bright, confident
primary school children, went to a secondary school with corporal
punishment, and, although never likely to deliberately break a rule, went in
fear and emerged into adulthood with all the confidence knocked out of them.
I wouldn't want a return to that.