In message , Sacha
writes
On 2011-08-17 11:54:58 +0100, Martin said:

On Wed, 17 Aug 2011 11:50:57 +0100, Sacha wrote:

On 2011-08-17 10:09:51 +0100, Martin said:

On Wed, 17 Aug 2011 10:00:26 +0100, Sacha
wrote:

On 2011-08-17 09:57:56 +0100, Baz said:

Mike Lyle wrote in
:

On Tue, 16 Aug 2011 15:59:36 GMT, Baz wrote:

Mike Lyle wrote in
:


You spoke to the Clerk to the Justices, or a clerk working for
the
Court? A slight difference, as the latter is, well, a clerk; the
former isn't what we'd commonly call a "clerk", but a lawyer, who
will usually ensure the Justices don't commit bloopers: on the
whole I'll be surprised if a learned Clerk would tend to agree with
what you say above. The criminal justice system would crash and burn
without JPs.
Oh, and what _is_ a "do-gooder", please?

I spoke to the viperous person who explains to the magistrate
in court
what the offender is here for and just what a bad lot the defendant is
and advises the JP, magistrate or whatever you need to call them,
do-gooder is a good description of an idiot I saw give liberty to a
callous, no good trash criminal who invades everyone it comes across.
This person is the clerk of the court.
Certainly, the person who advises the magistrates on the law is
the
Clerk to the Justices. I'm surprised this "viperous" one stepped out
of line with you: I don't think he should have criticised the JPs.
The do-gooder is that the person, on the bench with 2 others

no idea how much they hurt a victim of crime by giving a soft
sentence.
All of this is fresh in my mind, and I have spoken to this
clerk of
the court, the same person who was physically in court who was
advising the bench.
I hope this explains to you just how good our magistrates
courts are.
Crash and burn indeed!
Well, crash and burn is what the system _would_ do without

Imagine if the Crown Court had to deal with every offence instead of
only maybe ten per cent of them: the waiting list would make the
slowest hospital look brilliant, and they'd probably run out of jurors
in a few years.
I'm sorry you had a bad experience; but it isn't usually like


I understand what you mean, Mike.
I just wish the magistrates or JP's would toughen up and make

punishment fit the crime.
Baz
Part of that - not all of it - is the political will behind the
directives given to the judiciary. Quite a lot of politicians seem to
live in a sort of glass cage, unaware that the general public is
becoming mightily frustrated at a lot of the things going wrong which
we used to take for granted.
and the closing of things that could be afforded even during the
great
depression, things like public libraries, and mobile libraries in
rural areas, maternity wards in hospitals in remote places etc.
bus services,
They close because few use them.

village shops,
They can't compete with supermarkets.

Indeed but I think this is where quite a lot of people would like to
see a halt to the march of the supermarkets.
Stopping them being sub-post offices was the last straw.

Yes. Our village shop/post office closed because when the owner tried
to sell it, the PO would only allow them 15 hours of PO selling per
week and that was the most lucrative source of income. The PO in
Ashburton has been up for sale for years but nobody wants to take it on
because of the bureaucracy and red-tape. Our local PO owner gave up
when the powers-that-be insisted he, his wife and their one employee
learned how to use the computer and said that only they could do so. Of
course, not only did this mean a steepish learning curve for them, it
meant that they couldn't go on holiday as the HQ wouldn't approve
anyone else using the computer.

price of petrol in rural areas, planning
decisions
yes

but I'd say education, crime and NHS are top of many agendas.
Village schools died in the early 1950s.

Ours is a CoE school and is still going strong.


Paradoxically, although village populations may grow, attendance at the
school may diminish, not because there are fewer children living there
but because parent commutes out of the village to work and so places
child in a school nearer to her/his work place.
--
hugh

On 17/08/2011 14:30, Baz wrote:
I do not want to bring back hanging or anything revenge-based.

I would like repeat violent criminals remanded into custody until their
case can be dealt with.

I can't help wondering if you have gotten hold of the wrong end of the
stick.

Nick perhaps needs reminding that punishment is not the sole purpose of
incarceration. It is also sometimes required in order to protect the
public.

--
Danny Colyer http://www.redpedals.co.uk
"I'm riding a unicycle with my pants down. This should be every boy's
dream." - Bartholomew J Simpson

In article ,
Danny Colyer wrote:
On 17/08/2011 14:30, Baz wrote:
I do not want to bring back hanging or anything revenge-based.

I would like repeat violent criminals remanded into custody until their
case can be dealt with.

I can't help wondering if you have gotten hold of the wrong end of the
stick.

Nick perhaps needs reminding that punishment is not the sole purpose of
incarceration. It is also sometimes required in order to protect the
public.

You definitely need reminding that claiming that something is required
for a particular purpose does not mean that it actually delivers what
it is intended to. And there is a lot of evidence that the high level
of imprisonment used in the USA and UK actually increases the danger
to the public.

The truth is rarely pure and never simple.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

On 17/08/2011 22:57, Danny Colyer wrote:
On 17/08/2011 14:30, Baz wrote:
I do not want to bring back hanging or anything revenge-based.

I would like repeat violent criminals remanded into custody until their
case can be dealt with.

I can't help wondering if you have gotten hold of the wrong end of the
stick.

Nick perhaps needs reminding that punishment is not the sole purpose of
incarceration. It is also sometimes required in order to protect the
public.

But they are comparatively rare. We had our village hall repainted by a
bunch of reprobates on the Community Payback Scheme. I will retell the
experience here as it might help the debate somewhat.

I would say the people we got varied enormously but there were five main
types - almost all young men and a scary number were illiterate:

Individuals so simple and gullible they should be in sheltered housing.
(typically caught by the police because they didn't try to run away)

Tradesmen caught speeding or drunk driving and sometimes both.

Otherwise reasonable guys drunk and disorderly and/or for assault after
a night on the town who took a swipe at someone. A disturbing subset of
these were recent returnees from Iraq or Afghanistan which suggests to
me the Army was failing in its duty of care to its employees.

Drug addicts caught stealing or in possession.

All of the above were quite reasonable if a bit unruly when sober though
we did have a guy who could see pink elephants one day! Most of the
trademen got stuck in and did what needed doing until their hours were
up. A couple were really good decorators and carpenters too.

There was a tiny hardcore of bone idle absolute wasters for whom the
system simply did not work. They knew their rights and knew detailed
sections of the law. They were not the brainless idiots portrayed in the
media. The really annoying thing for me watching them was that whilst
the front line guys did their best to teach them useful skills (like how
to paint a door or windowframe) the next tier of management up the chain
was to put it in a nutshell absolutely f*cking useless. The guys on the
front line had no effective support from their bosses.

There were no adequate sanctions against the tiny handful of persistent
troublemakers. For my money they should have been chained together and
put on litter picking duty on motorways or dropped in the middle of the
Pennine way with a large supply of rock and told to get on with it. Food
and water only supplied in the unlikely event of good behaviour.

It sounds to me like Baz got landed with a member of this latter group
who know *exactly* how to play the system.

Regards,
Martin Brown

In article ,
Danny Colyer wrote:

Nick perhaps needs reminding that punishment is not the sole purpose of
incarceration. It is also sometimes required in order to protect the
public.

You definitely need reminding that claiming that something is required
for a particular purpose does not mean that it actually delivers what
it is intended to. And there is a lot of evidence that the high level
of imprisonment used in the USA and UK actually increases the danger
to the public.

I wrote nothing to suggest that high levels of imprisonment were beneficial.

Perhaps you have some convincing evidence that a violent criminal is no
less likely to perpetrate violence against the general public while
incarcerated than when at large? If not, my statement stands.

This is ridiculous. This will be my last posting on this matter.

The problems with excessive incarceration are well-known. Firstly,
it often turns curable criminals (including ones who have been
violent) into habitual criminals. And, secondly, it means that
the innocent and relatively so get corrupted by the hardened
criminals.

If there were a simple classification into habitual violent
criminals and non-violent suspects and criminals who will respond
to other penalties, then your black-and-white ideas would work.
Now, here, in the real world, things are not like that!

I suggest that you read up some serious studies on penology.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

On 18/08/2011 06:27, wrote:
In ,
Danny Colyer wrote:
On 17/08/2011 14:30, Baz wrote:
I do not want to bring back hanging or anything revenge-based.

I would like repeat violent criminals remanded into custody until their
case can be dealt with.

I can't help wondering if you have gotten hold of the wrong end of the
stick.

Nick perhaps needs reminding that punishment is not the sole purpose of
incarceration. It is also sometimes required in order to protect the
public.

You definitely need reminding that claiming that something is required
for a particular purpose does not mean that it actually delivers what
it is intended to. And there is a lot of evidence that the high level
of imprisonment used in the USA and UK actually increases the danger
to the public.

I wrote nothing to suggest that high levels of imprisonment were beneficial.

Perhaps you have some convincing evidence that a violent criminal is no
less likely to perpetrate violence against the general public while
incarcerated than when at large? If not, my statement stands.

The truth is rarely pure and never simple.


--
Danny Colyer http://www.redpedals.co.uk
"I'm riding a unicycle with my pants down. This should be every boy's
dream." - Bartholomew J Simpson

wrote in :

In article ,
Danny Colyer wrote:

Nick perhaps needs reminding that punishment is not the sole
purpose of incarceration. It is also sometimes required in order
to protect the public.

You definitely need reminding that claiming that something is
required for a particular purpose does not mean that it actually
delivers what it is intended to. And there is a lot of evidence
that the high level of imprisonment used in the USA and UK actually
increases the danger to the public.

I wrote nothing to suggest that high levels of imprisonment were
beneficial.

Perhaps you have some convincing evidence that a violent criminal is
no less likely to perpetrate violence against the general public while
incarcerated than when at large? If not, my statement stands.

This is ridiculous. This will be my last posting on this matter.

The problems with excessive incarceration are well-known. Firstly,
it often turns curable criminals (including ones who have been
violent) into habitual criminals. And, secondly, it means that
the innocent and relatively so get corrupted by the hardened
criminals.

If there were a simple classification into habitual violent
criminals and non-violent suspects and criminals who will respond
to other penalties, then your black-and-white ideas would work.
Now, here, in the real world, things are not like that!

I suggest that you read up some serious studies on penology.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

Can I just say that I can't see a reason why a shoplifter should be
remanded into custody and a violent criminal(not just our cars) with
history should be given bail. In the same court on the same day.
Seems like a lottery for the likes of us who are victims.
Penology????? Sound like a do-goder to me.

When we can't sleep tonight we will think penology.
After the umpteenth time of checking the doors or hearing a mouse fart can
we sleep?

NO

Baz

Janet wrote in
:


Baz has only just discovered there's a difference between a
magistrate
and a judge.

Janet


Yes that is true, Janet.
Are you being sarky?

I don't have many talents, and might not be too bright, never been at court
before. I have never needed to know the difference, but now I do thanks to
a ******* who has made our life 'more difficult than it was'

Baz

Martin wrote in
news

It took us years to get over being burgled several times.

Burglary is a particularly nasty horrible crime.
I bet they got away with it? Or absconded whilst on bail?

Chin up mate.

Baz

In article , Martin Brown
writes
On 17/08/2011 22:57, Danny Colyer wrote:
On 17/08/2011 14:30, Baz wrote:
I do not want to bring back hanging or anything revenge-based.

I would like repeat violent criminals remanded into custody until their
case can be dealt with.

I can't help wondering if you have gotten hold of the wrong end of the
stick.

Nick perhaps needs reminding that punishment is not the sole purpose of
incarceration. It is also sometimes required in order to protect the
public.

But they are comparatively rare. We had our village hall repainted by a
bunch of reprobates on the Community Payback Scheme. I will retell the
experience here as it might help the debate somewhat.

Despite the way in which this thread started, I can't help feeling that
it has very little to do with gardening.

Roy.
--
Roy Bailey
West Berkshire.

"Roy Bailey" wrote in message
...
In article , Martin Brown
writes
On 17/08/2011 22:57, Danny Colyer wrote:
On 17/08/2011 14:30, Baz wrote:
I do not want to bring back hanging or anything revenge-based.

I would like repeat violent criminals remanded into custody until their
case can be dealt with.

I can't help wondering if you have gotten hold of the wrong end of the
stick.

Nick perhaps needs reminding that punishment is not the sole purpose of
incarceration. It is also sometimes required in order to protect the
public.

But they are comparatively rare. We had our village hall repainted by a
bunch of reprobates on the Community Payback Scheme. I will retell the
experience here as it might help the debate somewhat.

Despite the way in which this thread started, I can't help feeling that
it has very little to do with gardening.

Roy.
--
Roy Bailey
West Berkshire.


but Roy, didn't you know, it's a social chat newsgroup/forum by some as
well. ... Just watch.

Mike


--

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

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

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