# Thieving little pineapples



## Dibs-h (20 Feb 2010)

Bloody workshop isn't finished but the little pineapples have already paid a visit.

I'd already taken the big Lorem P\T down, (but as the motor detaches in secs, it lives in the house) along with the Dewalt B\S, a 110 transformer and a cheap Sliding Mitre Saw (Power Devil or some such brand) and wrapped a 6mm chain through everything and a fat padlock. Covered the whole lot with a blanket - more to keep the frost off than hide them.

Went in last night - wiping the sawdust off the table, noticed the blanket wasn't on the machines. Went round the back - chain & padlock on the floor with 2 halves of a link nicely severed - chop saw gone. Everything else still there.

The severed link - it's obvious the little scrotes bought bolt cutters along - for a cheapy saw that I wouldn't pay £20 for if someone offered it to me. I suppose time to upgrade - but we'll wait a while - like till the door\windows are on.

I suppose I'd been more p1ssed if they'd taken the transformer as my other ones weighs a ton. Or if they'd taken the 4 Bessey speed clamps, a pair of large K Body style clamps and 3 F clamps by Gross Stabil and loads of wooden cam clamps - all hung on a wall. Or the Record morticer.

So now the clamps, morticer and b\s are all back in the house. It appears they came in thru the bottom corner of the garden - from the adjoining primary school playground (half term - shut). So will be moving a few largish pieces of mesh leftover from the raft construction into place.

Would so like to put the remaining machines back - chain them together and plug them into the mains!


----------



## 9fingers (20 Feb 2010)

Sorry to hear about that Dibs.

Can you rig up a load mains powered bell that will sound if the door is opened? Something that will frighten the little bu88ers if they try again.

The only way is either no windows or stout bars with nothing 'tasty' in view.

Bob


----------



## Dibs-h (20 Feb 2010)

9fingers":289xm3ov said:


> Sorry to hear about that Dibs.
> 
> Can you rig up a load mains powered bell that will sound if the door is opened? Something that will frighten the little bu88ers if they try again.
> 
> ...



No door Bob - it's currently being made.


----------



## 9fingers (20 Feb 2010)

Bit of an own goal then really - still rotten luck though!

Still worth precautions though if they tell more knowledgeable mates about the stuff they left behind.

You can get PIR motion detectors attached to alarms.

Bob


----------



## big soft moose (20 Feb 2010)

9fingers":3rnt4e1c said:


> Bit of an own goal then really - still rotten luck though!
> 
> Still worth precautions though if they tell more knowledgeable mates about the stuff they left behind.
> 
> ...



or just get a big dog (btw I have a cheap compound mitre saw you can have if you want it - not a slider - but we'd have to work out how to get it from here to there )


----------



## laird (20 Feb 2010)

I get really annoyed hearing things like this. I think the UK law should follow many other countries. You can defend you, yours and your property however you feel fit. If someone goes outside the law then they are outside it - and do-gooding lawyers shouldn't be able to prosecute you for defending your family/goods.
My shed's in the back garden, not overlooked, and if any toerag's caught in it - well the big compost heap awaits.
Rant over.


----------



## Dibs-h (20 Feb 2010)

9fingers":1nzrf3ts said:


> Bit of an own goal then really - still rotten luck though!
> 
> Still worth precautions though if they tell more knowledgeable mates about the stuff they left behind.
> 
> ...



Everything else has been emptied out (back into the house) so nothing more than sawdust left in the workshop. Oh and the Lorem - which is coming back in tomorrow - but as it has no motor on it - probably isn't obvious what it is.

Will have the windows\doors on and secure by the coming weekend.



big soft moose":1nzrf3ts said:


> or just get a big dog (btw I have a cheap compound mitre saw you can have if you want it - not a slider - but we'd have to work out how to get it from here to there )



Cheers for the offer - will let you know if it comes to it.

Have thought about a dog - but the ones I'd prefer require a lot of excercise and time (and I don't have much of that left) and it wouldn't be right to get that sort of dog and neglect it.


----------



## Mike.C (20 Feb 2010)

Sorry to hear the little to$$ers have paid you a visit. Although they may not have got much they still nicked off you. :twisted: 

Cheers

Mike


----------



## kasandrich (20 Feb 2010)

Get some nice roses or maybe rasberries, anything nice and thorny, and leave it to get overgrown, all round the perimeter of your garden is the best defence.

Security lights are also helpfull, the light-fingered among us like to creep about in the dark, don't give them anywhere to hide.


----------



## TheTiddles (20 Feb 2010)

pyrocanthus would be my vote, it's the only thing you can't be nicked yourself for if they cause themselves harm

Aidan


----------



## studders (21 Feb 2010)

Sorry to hear that Dibs. Only happened to me once and it was partly my fault for not locking up properly.
From what I've seen, read, heard you should be on your toes for another visit as the scum come back to see if you've replaced what they nicked or to get anything they couldn't take the first time.
If that does happen you will go easy on the poor, deprived little blighters won't you?


----------



## Brian Jackson (21 Feb 2010)

laird":3pm6ldex said:


> I get really annoyed hearing things like this. I think the UK law should follow many other countries. You can defend you, yours and your property however you feel fit. If someone goes outside the law then they are outside it - and do-gooding lawyers shouldn't be able to prosecute you for defending your family/goods.
> My shed's in the back garden, not overlooked, and if any toerag's caught in it - well the big compost heap awaits.
> Rant over.



My sentiments etirely.


----------



## devonwoody (21 Feb 2010)

In the old days, a good preventive system was to have a moat around your establishment.

Sorry Dibsh to hear of your upset, give them my best wishes if you catch up with them.


----------



## 9fingers (21 Feb 2010)

devonwoody":36crjckr said:


> In the old days, a good preventive system was to have a moat around your establishment.
> 
> Sorry Dibsh to hear of your upset, give them my best wishes if you catch up with them.



Not so attractive now as one can't get it cleaned out as a chargeable expense :lol: :lol: 

Bob


----------



## MickCheese (21 Feb 2010)

I know it's no consolation but it could have been worse but I am sorry to hear this, I have been an avid reader of your wip for your workshop so I feel I know you.

We have a Japanese Akita weighing in at about 6 stone. She is a silent assassin, we got her after I found a burglar in our garden using it as a short cut to the neighbors house who were away on holiday.

Good luck.

Mick


----------



## devonwoody (21 Feb 2010)

MickCheese":tbais5w6 said:


> I know it's no consolation but it could have been worse but I am sorry to hear this, I have been an avid reader of your wip for your workshop so I feel I know you.
> 
> We have a Japanese Akita weighing in at about 6 stone. She is a silent assassin, we got her after I found a burglar in our garden using it as a short cut to the neighbors house who were away on holiday.
> 
> ...



they look rather peaceful to me.

http://images.google.co.uk/images?sourc ... CBYQsAQwAA


----------



## jimi43 (21 Feb 2010)

Looks can be deceiving...I had a "Lassie" collie....most vicious dog I have ever met made worse by the gentle reputation started by Hollywood!

My neighbour (a cabinet maker) suffered three break-ins....he got a South African Ridgeback....now THERE'S a dog I would not go near if I didn't know her! (mind you...she was as soft as marshmallow!)

It is so difficult protecting an effective "site" situation. Is it possible to set up booby traps...piles of breeze blocks held up by key trip planks...

"Sorry officer....he obviously tripped over some supplies whilst trying to break in....pity about the smashed skull I know....still no harm done...I can still use the bricks!"

(the contents of this post are meant as a joke!)

Jim


----------



## Richard D (21 Feb 2010)

The biggest problem with such things (aside from their obvious illegality, I'm afraid) is the risk that you forget them yourself, and come a cropper one morning when you're in a rush to get on with something.


----------



## jlawrence (21 Feb 2010)

agree with theTiddles, pyrocanthus is supposed to form a very good pretty impenetrable border.


----------



## studders (21 Feb 2010)

Richard D":1lsl8pvy said:


> The biggest problem with such things (aside from their obvious illegality, I'm afraid) is the risk that you forget them yourself, and come a cropper one morning when you're in a rush to get on with something.



That'd be me then.


----------



## Dibs-h (21 Feb 2010)

Thanks Chaps.

One has to go thru several gardens at least or a large school playground to get to ours - so we've been fared well over the yrs.

I find it rather odd that burglars who normally come equipped with a screwdriver - turned up with large bolt cutters.

But the door will be getting assembled today and the door frame should also get finished - so by the coming weekend - be a totally different story.


----------



## BMac (21 Feb 2010)

I imagine the bolt cutters were brought along because the thieves had already had a peek to see what was available. I had my workshop broken into about eight years ago and it was a very efficient job because they had bolt cutters to get past the padlock and managed to lift only my best stuff. The thieving was also carried out during a 20 minute period at around 4.40am when I was trying to get some sleep. It seems obvious that the thieves were watching my routine because, then, I seldom slept for more than 30 minutes at a time and was up and down all night. I still think of those [email protected] going through my stuff every time I open the 'shop.

Brendan


----------



## wobblycogs (21 Feb 2010)

Sorry to hear about that. Little toe rags.

A friend of mine had a load of stuff stolen a couple of years ago from some farm buildings. The little sods came equiped with a cordless angle grinder! Ironically the two padlocks they cut through were worth more than what they carried off. We reckoned they probably had their hands full of tools so couldn't carry off the heavier more expeinsive items. Talk about not thinking it through :lol: 

I would certainly prepare for a second and even a thrid visit though. I'm seriously considering fitting a smoke screen once I get the shop properly up and running. 

There was a program on a while back about crime in the uk and people who defended their property. There was an old guy featured on it who I felt really sorry for. He had taken defending his property to extremes though and had rigged his WWII service revolver to shoot at the door if anyone opened it without detaching a bit of string. He forgot it one day and shot himself in the leg. Not only did he nearly bleed to death the police prosicuted him.


----------



## jimi43 (21 Feb 2010)

A guy in the village put two mortice locks and a HUGE padlock on his workshop.

The slimey gits prised the lap off the back...the bit facing the woods...one by one and got in that way.

Can you put razor wire in your bushes these days or is that illegal?

Like the old "broken glass on the top of the wall" trick only more modern!

Jim


----------



## jack55 (21 Feb 2010)

If you get a dog they would probably pinch that


----------



## wobblycogs (21 Feb 2010)

A couple of people have mentioned pyrocanthus and I agree it would keep the little sods from getting through the hedge but it's murder to trim / look after. Last summer I cut one down in our garden which had been allowed to get out of control. It was fifteen feet tall with a main trunk of about 5 inches. It took all day to take this bush / tree down and another to burn it as every piece had to be handled really carefully. I've dried the timber and I plan on trying to make a small box from it once I get a bandsaw to mill it with, should be in interesting exersize.


----------



## MikeH (21 Feb 2010)

Hmmm, surely the point is it was in your garden. You should not have to take draconian and medieval precautions, you should be able to leave whatever you like lying around without this happening.

Now I shall take my rose tinted specs off........

It's just that it annoys me so much that we should even be having to discuss how to better protect our own stuff on our own property, and if you do find the toe rags on your property doing wrong you should be entitled to do the same to them....


----------



## Froggy (21 Feb 2010)

Hi Dibs,

Also sorry to hear about that, I know only too well what it's like after 3 burglaries, car broken into 4 times and 3 other attempts on the house..twice when someone was in!!! That's part of the reason I moved to France. Ever time we returned from holiday I was anticipating the worst.
Are you insured? I know it's not a massive amount, but new for old...? Plus the damage.
See you next month, Froggy.


----------



## Max Power (21 Feb 2010)

The best deterrent is , as has been mentioned a couple of big dogs. We used to get toe rags creeping through the wood next to the house and coming into the garden to steal. Once I got Flossie and Henry (a couple of trained Bullmastiffs 10st and 12st)nobody comes near. I have signs on the gates stating "do not enter under any circumstances" some silly person ignored it and climbed over the gates Flossie leapt on him like a lion and pinned him down. Ive never heard such blood curdling screams, bet he had to throw his trousers out when he got home 8)


----------



## wobblycogs (21 Feb 2010)

We picked our current dog up from the dogs trust and one of the conditions was that (no matter how many dogs you ahve owned) you have to go to a one hour "are you sure you know what you are doing" lecture. They said there that a dog costs about £10K over it's life time. It's just not a viable option if the only reason to get one is to protect your house / shed.

It's an even worse option if, like ours, she's more likely to fetch them a ball to play with than bark at them :roll:. In fact if they threw the ball for her a couple of times she'd probably help them carry the stuff off!


----------



## head clansman (21 Feb 2010)

hi all 

it's a sorry state of affairs when you cant leave things in your garden, and who say's there little pineapples , most burglaries are done to you by someone you know , a neighbour or someone living close by , you can bet your boots someone was watching you chain that lot together , so take the hint here security precautions your going to have take when that shop is up and running with all your tools inside it, thing like all your hand tools as well items easily removed, hmm mind boggling , me if i could have my way I would break every bone in both there hands, no i wouldn't, I would do like some of the arab country do hold out his hands and slice them off hopefully with a bunt sword , so he will never steel again . hc


----------



## devonwoody (22 Feb 2010)

I think that thieves have no fear of punishment these days, they most probably think if they are caught the first few times, they only get a caution, after that they most probably can survive around 30 or so convictions before a jail cell becomes vacant. 

I think physical punishment needs to come back, not this modern day soft approach, mind you I got through the scrumping era unscathed.


----------



## Dibs-h (22 Feb 2010)

Spent several hours yesterday, clearing up some stone, etc. in the corner where they must have come in. A previous owner was somewhat religious and had some sort of stone thingy, with a statue of the Virgin Mary. 

The statue has long gone with the owner - but the stone "alter" remained. Took that apart - must have yielded somewhere in the region of 1cu yard or stone.

Then pulled out the 10mm steel mesh left over from the construction - fair few pieces and placed them into the gap. Several pieces layered over themselves - and all wired together in a millions of places. Will hammer in a few leftover pieces of 10mm rebar into the foot of it into the soil as well - so hopefully they won't be coming back in thru that bit.

Once the shop is up - I'm not to worried about them coming back in - as security (as much as can be) has been planned into the construction. Just a little annoying that I've had to take time away from finishing the door to fix these other things.

The current Home Office guidance is not to give custodial sentences for Burglary offences. Personally there would be mileage in the California way of things - 3 strikes and drop the fecker in the North Sea and send the bill to his family (Chinese way).

Society is treated on how it treats the weakest, human rights, etc. - I understand that on the whole and do agree with most - but there are portions of society (hopefully very small), who would hope that the rest go down the road of "turn the other cheek", so they can carry on with thieving, mugging, etc. So I would most certainly welcome far tougher responses from the Law to this little scrotes - especially options that were terminal.


----------



## wobblycogs (22 Feb 2010)

I'm not sure I'd go as far as dropping the little sods in the north sea or chopping bits off (although just after they nicked some stuff from us I thought a little differently) but I would certainly make it so that crimes with intent carried a much heavier sentance.

The way I see it they didn't just take advantage of a situation that presented it self they went out of their way to break the law. Perhaps crimes with intent should carry a minimum of two years plus whatever you would normally get for the crime.


----------



## devonwoody (23 Feb 2010)

I've seen the chain gangs working ditches in the USA, I think our community service it too soft. 

Chain the pippers up here and put them to work at local sewerage plants bagging up the stuff six hour an evening after work. :wink:


----------



## would not (23 Feb 2010)

Well seasoned oak, hand crafted to make a set of gallows. 

Shwing... :twisted:

When on holiday last year in Yorkshire I noticed a number of villages still had stocks in the market square, unfortunately they weren't being used. :roll: 

Such is the state of affairs that if you are a drunk and drug addict you can head on down to your local post office to collect your wad of cash and then break in to someone's house on the way home too make sure you have enough money to pay for this weeks smack..

I see that the benefits given out each week now exceed the taxes taken from people who work. GREAT (?) Britain..


----------



## would not (23 Feb 2010)

devonwoody":3cawiuba said:


> I've seen the chain gangs working ditches in the USA, I think our community service it too soft.
> 
> Chain the pippers up here and put them to work at local sewerage plants bagging up the stuff six hour an evening after work. :wink:



There's an advert played on the radio about offenders having to wear orange bibs saying "I'm a naughty boy" or something on them, it's been on for 6 months or so and they say you'll be seeing them in your neighbour hood - I haven't seen one. Saying that it's probably to cold to send them out, they are probably in a porta cabin drinking tea, keeping warm and conserving energy for night time activities?


----------



## grafter (23 Feb 2010)

these are meant te be un-cropable
http://www.almax-security-chains.co.uk/

this is from a bike site that may help
part 1: http://www.bikeradar.com/gear/article/h ... t-1-21131/

part 2: http://www.bikeradar.com/gear/article/h ... rt-2-21414

getting a big bucket, filling in with concrete and wire mesh and burying a decent chain will hopefully put off any potential thieves.

Totally agree with previous posts regarding thorny plants and PIR lights - personally i think alarms are a waste of time, no one bats an eyelid now


----------



## MikeG. (23 Feb 2010)

jimi43":3jo312ue said:


> The slimey gits prised the lap off the back...the bit facing the woods...one by one and got in that way.Jim



There are a couple of ways around this. Firstly, directly under the boarding have a layer of expanded metal lath. EML is cheap, and actually quite time consuming for anyone to cut through. I don't think many thieves would go to the trouble. My bike shed is protected like this, and a PE store shed at my wife's school took my advice and did this, and it has resisted 3 attempts at break-ins.

The other way is taken care of by my normal shed wall construction technique of lining the inside of the wall with OSB. Again, it would make a lot of noise and take a bit of time to get through that.

Mike


----------



## 9fingers (23 Feb 2010)

Anyone prising the feather boards off my workshop will get a surprise.
Underneath they will find 100mm dense concrete blocks!
Furthermore there are no windows and the door has multipoint locking.

Bob

PS That is not a challenge to the local scroats!


----------



## devonwoody (23 Feb 2010)

Bob, the easiest way in then is through the roof.


----------



## 9fingers (23 Feb 2010)

You are possibly correct DW but it is all relative.

Imitation slates and OSB, Insulation and a MDF ceiling in the way on that route.

Bob


----------



## Dibs-h (23 Feb 2010)

The plan is to have a ply\osb ceiling on mine as well - coming thru a rosemary clay roof, laths, kingspan and then hitting ply, should be enough to deter most. 

I'm on with the door frame - would appreciate any input on it's planned reinforcement.

https://www.ukworkshop.co.uk/forums/exte ... 39546.html


----------



## would not (23 Feb 2010)

What about coming in from below? 





:roll:


----------



## xy mosian (23 Feb 2010)

That nearby school doesn't have a Vaulting Horse does it?  

xy


----------



## big soft moose (23 Feb 2010)

Dibs-h":3j6jlzkp said:


> The plan is to have a ply\osb ceiling on mine as well - coming thru a rosemary clay roof, laths, kingspan and then hitting ply, should be enough to deter most.
> 
> I'm on with the door frame - would appreciate any input on it's planned reinforcement.
> 
> https://www.ukworkshop.co.uk/forums/exte ... 39546.html



the door is always going to be the weak point in your defences as it has to be openable - in my opinion the key is multipoint locking top and bottom with mortices so there is nothing to crop, metal sheilding on the door to stop them cutting round the locks, hinges protected or on the inside so they cant be cut and the door opening outwards so it cant be kicked or sledge hammered in. (the downside being that your 'shop now resembles a crack den)

if you have windows they need to be barred, and preferably shuttered with locking shutters as per the door

add to that a sonic blaster alarm , and a smoke sheild and you are as secure as you are going to get (short of moats and minefields  )

that said you'll never keep someone out if they really want to get in, all you can do is make it dificult enough that they go elsewhere - plus if you do get done high security will make it easier to convince the loss adjuster that you took reasonable precautions


----------



## devonwoody (24 Feb 2010)

xy mosian":j4tlzqvm said:


> That nearby school doesn't have a Vaulting Horse does it?
> 
> xy



Perhaps they have been listening to their history lessons, and recalled the trojan horse. :wink:


----------



## Bluekingfisher (24 Feb 2010)

I have read some good and bad advice on this thread, as a crime prevention officer I have seen many garden shed/garage/workshop breakins. I don't wish to be an alarmist but once a shed, or house to that matter has been burgled the victim is something like 8 times more likely to become a victim again if retrospective maesures are not undertaken, the burglar knows how to get in, what security you have and what you have worth nicking. Usually after about six weeks, time enough for your insurance to have paid out and the tools are replaced. They might be thick but not dumb and they are good at what they do...it's their job 

Most thieves are after the easy option, they will always look for the point of the garden most easily compromised, they are not after a challenge. If you have a blind spot (lacks surveillance from the house or adjacent buildings) or the boundary line is easily negotiated then start at these points first, work from the outside in, creating several layers of security. Be careful as an agent of the property you will be responsible for any little darling who stumbles into your lion pit or machine gun nest. It would seem common sense to everyone that if you trespass on someones property you would expect to be caught or punished, no so a court of laws way of thinking. The excuse of "sorry your worships, I knew it was someones garden but my ball went over the fence and when I went to retrieve it the land mine blew my foot off" sound ridiculous, of course it does but he would walk away (no pun) scott free while you would have to mortgage your house to pay his compensation. You can of course take reasonable steps. The point of what is reasonable is the issue which will be debated. For example if you put some 'defensible topping on a 8' fence with a sign stating, caution, this fence is protected, this may be reasonable, but having the inside of the fence wired to your electric supply would not be, sorry to state the obvious but these methods have actually been used. 

Time is the burglars enemy if you can slow him down or make him think how he is going to get out he will think twice. So don't leave your dustbin or compost bin against the inside of the fence, it becomes a useful limbing aid for getting back out. Appropriate lighting is an excellent "security" deterrent. Avoid at all cost PIR lighting. It can create the fear of crime and will only come on when someone is in your garden....too late, he has already made his mind up to come in. Instead use photo cell lighting, comes on when it get dark, off when it gets light. It doesn't need to be bright, but put enough lamps in to cover vulnerable areas, including the perimeter of the workshop. Try to avoid the lamps from creating pools or pockets of shadow. The new 7 Watt long life bulbs burn about 1 penny of electric a day, well worth it I think.

Target hardening a workshop can be difficult, particularly if it is remote, again time and noise is the enemy of the burglar so anything to slow him down will work. I must admit I have never heard of suspects coming through a roof in a domestic garden workshop although several remote farm buildings have suffered from this although I do recommend internal cladding should they decide to come in via the siding. Alarms are also useful, although someone on here stated that no takes notice of an alarm, I don't know of any instances where a burglar has hung around waiting for someone to take notice of it. A shrill alarm will send them running and give you some indication that you are under attack. I have a little panic alarm attached to the door of the workshop attached to a loop and a hook which pulls the cord out if the door is opened. i've set if off a couple of times myself and still makes me jump out of my skin.

Property marking your tools will also help (your postcode followed by your house number will also help dissuade burglars from nicking them, makes then harder to sell on and handlers don't want to be caught with them, kind of difficult to explain to plod why you are holding property belonging to someone with their postcode on it.


----------



## jorgoz (24 Feb 2010)

Sorry to hear about the unpleasant event, lack of respect these days. 

But i think this is what happens when a materialistic society is created. As a society we are responsible for our own fows. Throwing a bone in the doghouse.... And punishin them to death doesn't resolve anything. Look at the US, the country with the most death penalties but also the highest crime rates.

I always wonder why some people get burgled multiple times. You start to wonder. What happens behind the scenes, i mean the not visible side of things. I'm not saying they ask for it, but i believe there is more to what the eye meets.

A problem with most dogs is they make such a racket in the neighborhood and if one barks down the road, the rest pitches in, nice :roll:


----------



## BMac (24 Feb 2010)

Bluekingfisher,

This panic alarm - is that the sort of thing a lady might carry in her bag or pocket? I am very interested in this for my own workshop because I live in a rural area where sound travels well at night.

Brendan


----------



## Jake (24 Feb 2010)

They don't cost very much so you don't need to mug a lady to get one, Brendan.


----------



## lurker (24 Feb 2010)

My Neighbour was done over at 2 month intervals 4 times!
They finally got the scrote & he admitted 4000 offences!

Something no one has mentioned - they need a market for this stuff. Someone must be buying it -is it you???. 
I saw at a boot sale a bloke selling about 20 lawnmowers - now ask yourself where they came from. He had other interesting stuff on his stall but I walked straight past. 

Maybe our resident legal eagle can add some advice but I believe you can use whatever preventive measures you like but you must not "set traps". 
Obvious barbed wire & spikes are OK. I have carpet gripper along the tops of my fences - legal or not I don't give a monkeys


----------



## jimi43 (24 Feb 2010)

Bootfairs do get a bad press for obvious reasons and your comment about 20 lawnmowers is valid but probably worth asking the guy. There is an old chap at one of our local fairs who has the skills to fix lawnmowers and he trolls clearance, auctions and freecycle for unwanted mowers to restore and supplement his pension.

So it is probably wrong to generalise. You also get some really dubious characters...you know the type...unwashed...flatbed truck...mother on the passenger seat...father and son...

I asked around and they run a bone-fide house clearance business...very successfully. 

With the amount of police and trading standards officers around our bootfairs I think that most criminals would think twice at selling there but this is not the same for every location.

I have a feeling that these stolen items get moved about within the criminal fraternity where they can trust the fences....

On the subject of those cheap panic alarms...they are superb. The battery lasts for absolutely ages and I had just the same setup...clamp the alarm to the door...put the cord around a hook inside so you can get your hand in and unhook it...and you do forget sometimes...it does make you jump in the daylight even when you know it's there so Lord knows what it would do to a thief!

Jim


----------



## BMac (24 Feb 2010)

Thanks Jake,

I had started watching for likely candidates among our village geriatrics but there was a tiny flaw in my plan...they all know me. So, I think I'll go legitimate for this one.

Brendan


----------



## grafter (24 Feb 2010)

thanks for a well written in depth reply Bluekingfisher


----------



## studders (24 Feb 2010)

jimi43":jpomaewn said:


> he trolls clearance, auctions
> 
> Jim








:shock:

Or did you mean trawls?

:lol:


----------



## Bluekingfisher (26 Feb 2010)

Bmac,

Thats the very ones, I did have a large box of them but handed them out to "needy" owners of sheds while on my rounds. They are only a couple of quid each. Some are much louder than others. If I can find the receipts for the orders I will let you know which model to look for.

Lurker, your carpet gripper is no doubt an effective means of protecting a boundary fence but could lead to civil action if some one was to come to harm, never heard of such actions but you are a big boy and can make those decisions for yourself. For the more cautious, there is a product which mimics the carpet gripper but won't lead to civil actions.

It's a plastic strip with pyramid type peaks which can be nailed to the top of the fence. In my opinion though may only provide minimal protection. A coat thrown over the top of the fence will provide enough protection to allow the intruder to climb over.

Barbed wire or razor wire may require planning permission, particularly if the boundary fence/wall abuts a public highway. It won't look very nice either and the wall will need to be higher than a tall man on stilts (should he inadvertently get caught up on it when walking past). I think 2.4m is the minimum height. A better option of protecting a boundary fence would be to use some form of anti climb paint, although this will require maintainance as it will through time dry out. Some have used grease and engine oil for the same purpose, as long as you highlight that such treatments are being employed you have taken reasonable steps to show warning.

If you have concerns re garden security contact your local cops and ask for the CPO to attend and provide you with some free but for the price of a cup of tea security advice. He or she will point out any obvious deficiencies in your "security" and how to go about addressing them. 

One final thing, unless the burglars have knowledge of what you have in your workshop/shed most crimes are opportunist and you have be singled out because your premises is in some vulnerable, you have to try and look at it from their perspective and why have they singled you out? Take a look at your neighbours gardens, how easy could you get into them compared to your own, that's the way burglar Bill thinks. If he has to think about getting in and how to get out he'll probably look else where. So before you spend time and money making your workshop a bunker think about the bigger picture.


----------



## BMac (26 Feb 2010)

Thank you Bluekingfisher, I would appreciate that but don't cause yourself any inconvenience if the information isn't easily available.

Brendan


----------



## Bluekingfisher (26 Feb 2010)

No worries mate, I might even have a used demo model lol lying around in the dusty archives somewhere. Got the outlaws down this weekend so I won't get much free time, so ping me a message next week to remind me.

Enjoy your weekend, I know I won't.

David


----------



## Lons (26 Feb 2010)

You can't win.

A few years ago, my neighbour was burgled and it seems they came back 2 weeks later (common practice) to steal the replacements claimed on insurance.
I saw the in my garden, 3 BIG youths and chased them across the padock which is my land where they escaped in a car. 
i gave the reg to the law which enabled them to catch the little b******* but then for my troubles, got an official dressing down for chasing them. 
I had grabbed a hammer on my way out for protection, big lads remember and even though on my property, had I caught them it appears I would have been done for threatening behaviour with a weapon. I was furious!!!!!!!


----------



## Bluekingfisher (26 Feb 2010)

I know exactly how you feel, but remember, we all have the vote, yet some seem to vote in the same ............. soft on law and DISorder.

We reap what others sow!!

I have friends in the states, this friend has a large property, he caught several youths stealing from his boat house, he ran outside with the mobile phone and his sons BB gun and held them at bay until the cops turned up. They were tagged and bagged but before the cops left he was taken to one side and told, if you are going to shoot them, drag them back into the house first, then shoot them.


----------



## Lons (26 Feb 2010)

devonwoody":3dw8qvvf said:


> I think that thieves have no fear of punishment these days, they most probably think if they are caught the first few times, they only get a caution, after that they most probably can survive around 30 or so convictions before a jail cell becomes vacant.
> 
> I think physical punishment needs to come back, not this modern day soft approach, mind you I got through the scrumping era unscathed.



Prison is definately not a deterent for any of them as by the time they get to that stage they are experienced and hardened criminals.
A term in prison is a holiday for many compared to what they have outside.
They have access to warmth, decent food, unlimited TV and games access and should the crimes be funding a drug habit, they get free methedone.
On leaving prison, they receive a cash benefit and if released early as per recent legislation because the government won't spend money on more prisons, they are given cash in lieu of lost board and lodging (prison ) WTF!!!!!!!

my wife is a prison nurse - I'd be giving the little b******* something a bit more potent than methedone.


----------



## Lons (26 Feb 2010)

Bluekingfisher":2fzboam7 said:


> I know exactly how you feel, but remember, we all have the vote, yet some seem to vote in the same ............. soft on law and DISorder.
> 
> We reap what others sow!!
> 
> I have friends in the states, this friend has a large property, he caught several youths stealing from his boat house, he ran outside with the mobile phone and his sons BB gun and held them at bay until the cops turned up. They were tagged and bagged but before the cops left he was taken to one side and told, if you are going to shoot them, drag them back into the house first, then shoot them.



Thing is:

My kids have flown the nest now, but had I been broken into with wife and kids in the house, I wouldn't have thought twice about using a weapon of any kind to attack and chase them off if necessary.

The law is/was an ass, not the fault of the police, They shouldn't be on anyones property but their own and a householder should have the right to eject them by ANY means. Too many "do gooders" argueing for the criminals' rights IMO - what about the poor victims?

Several very close friends are coppers incidently and one is pretty senior so I know there's a lot of activity behind the scenes to keep the little sods in check.


----------



## Bluekingfisher (26 Feb 2010)

As a society we have become too liberal and tolerant of those who don't know any better?????????????, they burgle your home and they receive a caution, you awake from your slumber in the middle of the night to protect your property, you get six years and your life and those of your family is never the same again, fair I think.

Soon all the decent law abiding, tax paying, decent folks will be on the inside while the criminals will be on the outside, most probably in your home which has now been possessed to house the poor unfortunates.


----------



## Lons (26 Feb 2010)

wobblycogs":3mnrptfv said:


> I'm not sure I'd go as far as dropping the little sods in the north sea or chopping bits off.



Err.........

I trust you don't mean dumping the little gits on us poor northerners. We've got our own contingent to get rid of :shock:


----------



## Lons (26 Feb 2010)

Bluekingfisher":1fmtxfkv said:


> Soon all the decent law abiding, tax paying, decent folks will be on the inside while the criminals will be on the outside, most probably in your home which has now been possessed to house the poor unfortunates.



Was in New Zealand and Oz in November and certainly felt much safer than here. A shock to the system when you come back TBH and NZ in particular seems to be as I remember (rose tints again) the UK to be in my youth when nobody bothered to lock their door.

My house these days is like Fort Knox :x


----------



## wobblycogs (26 Feb 2010)

With the current crazy state of the law where any defence of yourself or property seems to lead to your very own criminal prosecution I think it falls on us all to decide for ourselves what we would do in a given situation. The fact something is against the law doesn't mean it can't be done just that you must pay the consequences. 

The main problem with the law as I see it is while it allows for reasonable force the concept of reasonable seems to have been degraded over time to the point where it is all but meaning less now. You can call the police and let them deal with it but the majority of the time the crime will be over by the time they show up. 

Personally, I have considered my response to two scenarios: an intruder in the house when I'm there (probably at night) and a break in to a shed or garage. 

In the latter scenario I'm not sure I'd give chase. Simply letting them know they have been seen and the police called would, I'm sure, be enough to scare them off and if it isn't I'm not sure I'd like to face such a gutsy criminal. Part of my thinking here is that by the time I've got my boots on and tooled up the little sod would probably have had it away on his toes anyway.

In the first scenario though, given the opportunity, I would ensure that the criminal was totally incapacitated and there would be no warning given.

The sad thing is that the property owner is made to feel like they are in the wrong if they get borken into and their property wasn't nailed and chained down behind 3m fences with a dozen locks on the door. I don't see a difference between stealing from a shed with a flimsy lock to steal from a shed built like fort knox. In fact why should the lock matter at all, the crime is taking something that didn't belong to you not how easy it was to get to it.


----------



## jorgoz (26 Feb 2010)

Lons":2nztnut2 said:


> devonwoody":2nztnut2 said:
> 
> 
> > I think that thieves have no fear of punishment these days, they most probably think if they are caught the first few times, they only get a caution, after that they most probably can survive around 30 or so convictions before a jail cell becomes vacant.
> ...



A term in prison is a holiday for many compared to what they have outside.

And for the rest of their life their branded and stigmatised....Trying to find a job is extremely difficult if possible at all and they're stuck in a vicious circle. I'm not saying people should do whatever they like or there shouldn't be some general guidelines to outline society, but you could try and look at it from a different angle. 

The harder you punish the harder the criminals will become. Action - reaction.

Nothing happens without a reason, and as i've stated we as a society are responsible for what goes on in that society.

It's always us against them, society's need black sheep to dump their own frustrations and anger onto, but it's much easier shouting at them than to look at one's own issues.


----------



## big soft moose (26 Feb 2010)

jorgoz":3t31rc2f said:


> Lons":3t31rc2f said:
> 
> 
> > devonwoody":3t31rc2f said:
> ...



yeah but if they are societies "black sheep" then they are already branded and stigmatised and therefore a jail term will not add to their societal rejection - in fact within their own society it may well be regarded as a merit.

I agree that society is responsble for its ills , but the responsibility here is in too much wooly left wing thinking and emphasis on rehabilitation of the offender and not enough on punishment or the protection of society at large, which has produced a state of affairs where the offender does not fear the potential consequences of getting caught


----------



## Dibs-h (26 Feb 2010)

Lons":16s8s1lg said:


> but then for my troubles, got an official dressing down for chasing them.



I would have told Plod to pineapple off and stick his dressing down - or better still bend over & I'll do it. Sometimes Plod doesn't half over-egg his\her own importance.

The bit about dragging them back into the house - absolutely spot on. Wouldn't dream of doing anything to anyone - outside the walls of my house.

I suppose in hindsight - on some level - I had accepted that by leaving tools in the workshop and not taking them back into the house, there was a chance (and it wouldn't be small) that someone would come with bolt cutters and cut the chain and take the item. Having said that - it's probably all for the better.

For the cost of what they had taken - peanuts - it's freshened up "security" in my mind, just at the right point - i.e. the door is getting substantially reinforced as is the jamb. Gaps in the fence have been closed, and the chain and rubbish padlock on the gate between the drive and rear has been replaced with a substantial padlock that is sold as uncroppable (at least with anything less than 3' long).

Ply is about to be ordered to secure the back of the rafters in the roof and CCTV isn't far away. Managed to get some commercial grade equipment at a very good price.

As BlueKingFisher pointed out - time is the enemy of burglars, so if one can make it difficult for them, they'll most likely go somewhere else. You do also run the risk of them coming back in a larger nbr and tooled up and possibly targeting the householder 1st to get to the "valuables". What then?

Now it does beg the question that if windows had toughened\laminated D\G units and then internal grills - and the internal grills were "Live" exactly what would happen to the householder if some smackhead forced his way in thru the substantial glazing and then expired having come into contact with the "live" bars? How is that any different from someone breaking in - smoke cloak going off along with a klaxon and the thief, bricking it and tripping up and whacking his head on the edge of a cast iron saw table and checking out that way?


----------



## jorgoz (26 Feb 2010)

big soft moose":runylhjs said:


> yeah but if they are societies "black sheep" then they are already branded and stigmatised and therefore a jail term will not add to their societal rejection - in fact within their own society it may well be regarded as a merit.



There you go, their society is in fact the same as ours and were all human beings, it's the us against them that is part of the equasion i think.

I believe thieves are crossing boundaries for a reason, be it their upbringing, youth, personality, past experiences, the way we as a society pretend to need a lot of stuff to be happy,... and they will for example respond to people who have issues with boundaries as well. Or people who believe materialistic wealth is what it's all about or who are to connected to their goods or people who only see the bad in others, or ....
Quite complex, but then again quite easy. What happens behind the scenes is what i try to take into account.

I'm not saying it's not their fault or responsibility, but maybe nobody quite listens to them. And don't think i'm a softie, but i have quite strong views on this, but quite different from the masses.

Then again, i also believe there are people out there that don't want to be part of our society or don't want to be 'helped' (for lack of a better word), and there should be proper solutions for those people, but it's not by putting them away or punishing them that it will end all woe.


----------



## wobblycogs (26 Feb 2010)

I have a feeling that electrified bars behind the window would probably land you in jail if they we, shall we say, put to use. As I understand it you can't lay traps because you can be sure that the person climbing in thought the window actually is a black hatter. 

What if your shop was on fire and a fireman was climbing in through the window because your neighbour had told them (wrongly) that they had seen you going in there? A klaxon and smoke screen they will get over, a damn good electrocuting they might not.

As an aside I used to have a firemans axe which was good to 10000V so they probably wouldn't have a problem but that's beside the point.


----------



## Dibs-h (26 Feb 2010)

wobblycogs":3ca4v5ca said:


> I have a feeling that electrified bars behind the window would probably land you in jail if they we, shall we say, put to use. As I understand it you can't lay traps because you can be sure that the person climbing in thought the window actually is a black hatter.
> 
> What if your shop was on fire and a fireman was climbing in through the window because your neighbour had told them (wrongly) that they had seen you going in there? A klaxon and smoke screen they will get over, a damn good electrocuting they might not.
> 
> As an aside I used to have a firemans axe which was good to 10000V so they probably wouldn't have a problem but that's beside the point.



One gets the feeling you may as well just leave everything of any value (and not as well) on the front lawn with a sign saying "Help yourself".


----------



## wobblycogs (26 Feb 2010)

I know what you mean. You have my sympathy. In the last year we have had two thefts from our property so I know how it can make you feel. The first was almost certainly a couple of labours employed by our builder although we can't prove it. That made off with a couple of copper cylinders we had removed from the house and we going to recycle. 

The second one was quite funny though in some respects. A small porch on the side of the house has a lead roof and one night some little sod jumped up on it and tried to rip the lead off. They managed to get away with about 2 sq feet but wrecked the rest trying to get it off and failing (honestly, how useless do you have to be not to able to pull off a lead sheet?). 

Anyway, I had a quiet word with the dog after that. I pointed out to her that people were stealing the house from round her and if she didn't start protecting the place soon we wouldn't be able to feed her. My partner was in stitches listening to it. The strange thing is though she started to bark when people came close to the house at night almost as if she understood.

edited for spelling :?


----------



## Dibs-h (26 Feb 2010)

wobblycogs":335qnxiw said:


> I know what you mean. You have my sympathy. In the last year we have had two thefts from our property so I know how it can make you feel. The first was almost certainly a couple of labours employed by our builder although we can't prove it. That made off with a couple of copper cylinders we had removed from the house and we going to recycle.
> 
> The second one was quite funny though in some respects. A small porch on the side of the house has a lead roof and one night some little sod jumped up on it and tried to rip the lead off. They managed to get away with about 2 sq feet but wrecked the rest trying to get it off and failing (honestly, how useless do you have to be not to able to pull off a lead sheet?).
> 
> ...



I was going to replace the knackered Rosemary clays on the 2 bays (1 front & 1 back) with lead - but didn't in the end due knowing just how peeved I would be if I came from work\out and the bay had been stripped.

I saw the Smartwater spray system and thought it was cool - but would be much better were the ink an opaque ink - bright purple or similar. No way the little scrote could lie low for the weeks that it would take for it to come off. Now that has got me thinking - considering it wouldn't take much to cobble something together from some auto water injection bits & pieces. Hhmm. :-k


----------



## newt (26 Feb 2010)

Is it true that in prison you pay £1 a week for TV but in a NHS hospital it can be up to £15 a week :evil:


----------



## Lons (26 Feb 2010)

newt":m96g1aku said:


> Is it true that in prison you pay £1 a week for TV but in a NHS hospital it can be up to £15 a week :evil:



YUP

Except that some hospitals charge £3-4 per day!


----------



## jimi43 (26 Feb 2010)

My wife was walking our 18 year old dog down a country path behind our property and she was mugged by two young layabouts for her beaten up, cheap, pay as you go, phone.

She came back in a real state and let me know. I was in the workshop at the time and just picked up a 2x2 lump of hardwood and shot after them in the car. Luckily for them (and me) they were long gone...I swear, the red mist had come down and I would have seriously hurt them....

Would I act the same way again...too bloody right I would!

She has been really affected by this and doesn't want to walk the dog on her own anymore...something she really enjoyed. She was more worried about our dog at the time who was going bonkers...but she feared they would hurt him if she set him on them....

I think this whole human rights thing has gone completely potty.....why should we have to put up with this sort of mindless criminality?

I would bring back far stiffer punishments...as some have said...it might not work any better but it sure as hell makes me feel a LOT better!

This whole thread has made me paranoid about my security again...why should we live like this?

Anyway....enough! I'm off to feed the new tiger I have as a pet...  

Jim


----------



## Lons (26 Feb 2010)

*Surely the real problem is that there is no deterrent!*
The crims from the start know that they will go through the process of caution, asbo, loads more cautions so by the time they are incarcerated they have become hardened criminals, and yes it is certainly the fault of society. 

Punishment should be swift, and effective enough that they are s*** scared of going to prison.

Believe me they are all clued up fully on their "rights" and a lot of sloicitors making loads of money out of the "system" (I know one such person ).

I'll give you a ludicrous example of how it's OTT.

A prisoner who is an addict has self harmed several times, is extremely abusive and foul mouthed to staff. (Most are).

Nurse is called to attend to his latest cut arms to be confronted by a torrent of abuse and refusal of treatment and eventually says to him "for f**** sake pull yourself together. Think how your girlfriend and family must feel when they visit you in that state. We're here to help you for gods sake"

Prison governer passing and overhears - result - nurse is suspended and must undergo training, returns and must be supervised for 1 month and note placed on her record.

Nurse accepts she was wrong but is devastated and demoralised as all she tried to do was help him.
*Prisoner (patient) tries to sue for being sworn at.*

Not my missus I would add but true nontheless.

As an aside - the reason for refusing treatment is because they want to be sent to hospital where they get visitors who find it much easier to smuggle in drugs! 

I've got loads of examples from when I used to supply to the prisons many years ago and some of them are unbelievable1


----------



## big soft moose (26 Feb 2010)

jorgoz":1c6g8zzg said:


> big soft moose":1c6g8zzg said:
> 
> 
> > yeah but if they are societies "black sheep" then they are already branded and stigmatised and therefore a jail term will not add to their societal rejection - in fact within their own society it may well be regarded as a merit.
> ...



I'm sorry jorgoz but ive never read such twaddle in my entire life - by "their society" i meant the people with whom they regularly mix (ie other "theiving little pineapples")- if you seriously think that this is the same "society" in which members of this foruim move then you need to look outside the door of your ivory tower.

I too believe that theives are crossing boundaries for a reason - the reason being that they want to steal stuff to sell and buy drugs, lighter gas, white lightning cider, and nail varnish (to sniff), and the reason they do this more now than they did in previous generations is because they dont fear the consequences of getting caught.

as to the them and us - too right there is a them and us - on one hand you have the law abiding citizens who are robbed from who the law now singularly fails to protect, while on the other hand you have the scrotes who rob them which the law singularly fails to punish.

It would be interesting to see if you were still so willing to see their side and "hear what they are saying" if it was you workshop that was turned over or your wife who was mugged


----------



## wobblycogs (26 Feb 2010)

When I was a lad a few years ago my best friends dad got sent down for 18 months for aggravated assualt. The storys he had when he came out were unbelievable. He reckoned he spent most of his year and bit behind bars either drunk or high. In fact the only negative thing he could think of was that there were no women.

I think Lons hit on an important point, justice needs to be made swifter. There is such a delay between commiting the crime and any punishment that these people can't learn that what they are doing is wrong. 

Imagine trying to train a child the way the state does. The kid steals the toast off your plate at breakfast and you shout at it at lunch time. It just wouldn't work because there is no cause and effect corrolation.


----------



## Jake (26 Feb 2010)

big soft moose":3cmjqh2y said:


> and the reason they do this more now than they did in previous generations is because they dont fear the consequences of getting caught.



From what I remember of my brief study of criminology, one of the problems with criminals is that they are rubbish at thinking about consequences. That's one of the problems of trying to stop them, and why career criminals are in and out of prison all their lives. You can make the consequences as bad as you like (chopping bits off, even terminating life) and it doesn't stop criminals committing crimes - ask a yank.


----------



## big soft moose (26 Feb 2010)

Jake":yh7ozji6 said:


> big soft moose":yh7ozji6 said:
> 
> 
> > and the reason they do this more now than they did in previous generations is because they dont fear the consequences of getting caught.
> ...



it might not stop career criminals from commiting crimes which is why 3 strikes doesnt work , but it imo effective punishment does have a deterent effect on those who have not yet turned to crime

plus if you lock up the thieves for a long stretch and shoot the murderers and pederasts, and rapists between the eyes it sure has hell stops them from doing it again.


----------



## studders (26 Feb 2010)

Is the point of 'Punishment' not so much to do with reformation of those who break rules but, more to do with satisfying the desire for revenge, in a legal form, for those against whom the crime was committed?
If so, then surely the deterrent factor doesn't really come into the argument?


----------



## big soft moose (26 Feb 2010)

studders":7nn1ks6l said:


> Is the point of 'Punishment' not so much to do with reformation of those who break rules but, more to do with satisfying the desire for revenge, in a legal form, for those against whom the crime was committed?
> If so, then surely the deterrent factor doesn't really come into the argument?



personally i'd say not - i'm not interested in revenge, just in the safety of the law abiding majority in society

now i'm sure some will say the recedivism is higher where there is no rehabilitation and in some cases i'd agree that thats true - but it is also true that if the theiving little pineapples are locked up they cant reoffend because they are behind bars !

and of course the argument against that is often that we dont have the prison space - but you could maske this space by putting all the copnvicted rapists, kiddy fidlers, and murderers against the wall and administering some 9mm "rehabilitation"


----------



## Jake (26 Feb 2010)

studders":2g4ie198 said:


> Is the point of 'Punishment' not so much to do with reformation of those who break rules but, more to do with satisfying the desire for revenge, in a legal form, for those against whom the crime was committed?
> If so, then surely the deterrent factor doesn't really come into the argument?



There are various justifications for/purposes of criminal sentences - retribution (your one), deterrence, incapacitation (if they are dead they can't commit more crimes), rehabilitation, and restoration (victim compensation). They are all in play to some degree.


----------



## Jake (26 Feb 2010)

big soft moose":3162iylh said:


> and of course the argument against that is often that we dont have the prison space - but you could maske this space by putting all the copnvicted rapists, kiddy fidlers, and murderers against the wall and administering some 9mm "rehabilitation"



I'm sure if you moved to the right islamic regime, you'd fit in well. Afghanistan might be a hot at the mo - try Somalia perhaps?


----------



## big soft moose (26 Feb 2010)

Jake":6onh0umx said:


> big soft moose":6onh0umx said:
> 
> 
> > and of course the argument against that is often that we dont have the prison space - but you could maske this space by putting all the copnvicted rapists, kiddy fidlers, and murderers against the wall and administering some 9mm "rehabilitation"
> ...



You could be right - all though i'm agnostic i have a lot of respect for the teachings of islam - tho not as practiced by the lunatic extremist.

If i had the opportunity i would happily move to somewhere like abu dhabi or brunei


----------



## studders (26 Feb 2010)

OK thanks chaps.

Until it happens to me I don't really know what I'd want. Depends on what 'it' is I suppose?


----------



## TheTiddles (26 Feb 2010)

I like the comment about people being stigmatised by having been to prison, what like they're criminals or something!

The reason dishonest people are unlikely to be employed is because they're dishonest, only an silly person would employ one unless they've got an exemplary record to back them up, like 5 years of consistent work.

Anyway, back to workshops, has anyone had a modern garage door broken in to, one with locks in the corners etc...?

Aidan


----------



## jimi43 (26 Feb 2010)

Yes...I think we can go on for ages about the rights and wrong of society...

I am with Aidan...

Let's have a round of ideas that DO work...what things do really stop the oiks in their tracks....?

Jim


----------



## RogerS (26 Feb 2010)

Jake":137fi503 said:


> .. even terminating life and it doesn't stop criminals committing crimes ....



I think that will work. Works for me.


----------



## Jake (26 Feb 2010)

TheTiddles":223qy6j9 said:


> only an silly person would employ one unless they've got an exemplary record to back them up, like 5 years of consistent work.



A true enough observation, but also one which Yossarian would understand well.


----------



## Jake (26 Feb 2010)

RogerS":3i9dyzaq said:


> jake":3i9dyzaq said:
> 
> 
> > .... even terminating life and it doesn't stop criminals committing crimes ....
> ...



Speeding?


----------



## big soft moose (26 Feb 2010)

Jake":18qr3zu3 said:


> RogerS":18qr3zu3 said:
> 
> 
> > jake":18qr3zu3 said:
> ...



well i woulnt actually advocate it , but if there was a death penalty for speeding i bet people would drive a lot more carefully.


----------



## big soft moose (26 Feb 2010)

TheTiddles":2kdau0ay said:


> Anyway, back to workshops, has anyone had a modern garage door broken in to, one with locks in the corners etc...?
> 
> Aidan



we had about 4ks worth of contact type mowers etc nicked from a lock up garage a few years back - little scrotes rammed the door in with a stolen ford escort

the decent defence against that is a couple of fixed I beam bollards outside the door (which is fine so long as you dont want to get a vehicle in yourself - if you do there are lock down bollards but they suffer from cropablity)

course if you were feeling vindictive you could put the bollards inside the door so they only discovered them after they'd rammed it  - trouble is these days they could probably sue...


----------



## Jake (26 Feb 2010)

I refer you to earlier posts, most probably wouldn't. They would spend more on knowing where cameras are, and their relatives would complain vociferously when they were shot by the roadside by traffic police.


----------



## big soft moose (26 Feb 2010)

Jake":2ovx2v8r said:


> I refer you to earlier posts, most probably wouldn't. They would spend more on knowing where cameras are, and their relatives would complain vociferously when they were shot by the roadside by traffic police.



and i refer you to earlier posts - having been shot they wouldnt do it again !

course i dont actually advocate that for speeding or even for turning over workshops - but i cant see a problem with it as a penalty for murder, rape, pedrasty etc


----------



## Jake (26 Feb 2010)

Personally, I'd have very little difficulty with a policy of exterminating right wing people because they offend my sense of liberal pompous righteousness.


----------



## big soft moose (26 Feb 2010)

Jake":1sg64pqn said:


> Personally, I'd have very little difficulty with a policy of exterminating right wing people because they offend my sense of liberal pompous righteousness.



but think of all the business you'd be doing yourself out of - with only liberals left in society they'd be far more likely to have a group hug and seek counselling to talk about their disagreements than to resort to litigation.

plus with criminals no longer being punished but instead invited to a focus group/dioversity workshop to esplain why they are nasty little bar stewards there'd be no criminal defence work either


----------



## Jake (26 Feb 2010)

Having shared out the estates of the dead between the few who are liberal and right thinking enough for my taste* I would not require work.



(*that, obviously, is not a criterion I would allow the prospect of further wealth to affect)


----------



## Lons (26 Feb 2010)

jimi43":2r3o323j said:


> Let's have a round of ideas that DO work...what things do really stop the oiks in their tracks....?
> 
> Jim



It worked in the past - my kids aren't thieves because we brought them up to respect people and their property - and that is the nub of both the problem and the solution.

I'm lucky to live in a low crime area, my brother does not!

In my day, you didn't dare to backchat an adult and god forbid that you ever did something serious like scrumping apples, get caught and marched home to your mother, then to face the music when your dad got home.

Kids now know their "rights" and I've seen them on the streets in gangs, all under 10s, smashing propertyand terrorising old folk for the hell of it.

they know full well that their parents, (not interested anyway or they wouldn't be on the streets), can't chastise them and neither can the teachers or anyone else.

I've heard a 6 year old say to his mother "can't touch me, I'll report you to the social" FFS what kind of adult is he going to turn into - the druggy who breaks into your property!

I got the cane once at grammar school when I was 12 for being with a group of pals and one of them pinched a pen from woolworths. Had nothing to do with me, didn't even know till we were all stopped at the door.
I was not happy at being implicated but the cane did no damage except I will never forget it and certainly wouldn't have suffered the embarrassment a second time. The lad didn't do it again either.
Did I tell my parents? Not bloody likely!

*So..............Start in pre school.*


----------



## jimi43 (27 Feb 2010)

I was actually trying to get back on topic, asking for ideas for protecting my shed.... rather than try to put the world to rights or argue with anyone interested in cuddling morons...but hey...this is fun too!

 

Jim


----------



## devonwoody (27 Feb 2010)

There is something wrong somewhere (about protecting or catching the sods)

If a policeman can throw a spiked stinger across the road to stop a car thief getting away and thieving more cars, why cant a householder put a stinger down and stop thieves getting out of his shed?

A stinger is a weapon. whether its on the highway or in your garden.

BTW, los your system wont work because society has changed and wont go backwards. So I think a suitable deterrent is needed.


----------



## RogerS (27 Feb 2010)

devonwoody":2v0x881o said:


> .... So I think a suitable deterrent is needed.



Nah...Jake is going to give them all a cuddle and then they will see the error of their ways.


----------



## devonwoody (27 Feb 2010)

Problem then is more of us will want cuddles :x 

Whack em until they crawl away somewhere and only come out to play until they know they will be good.


----------



## PeterBassett (27 Feb 2010)

A guy from work came up with the idea of the "Chav Blender" for just this sort of thing.

It's exactly what you think it is. He's a visionary I tell you!


----------



## devonwoody (27 Feb 2010)

PeterBassett":1rsh6qbs said:


> A guy from work came up with the idea of the "Chav Blender" for just this sort of thing.
> 
> It's exactly what you think it is. He's a visionary I tell you!



Well I had to google that one.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Us6HDfg1pcU

Too soft imo


----------



## Jake (27 Feb 2010)

RogerS":30j8wzld said:


> devonwoody":30j8wzld said:
> 
> 
> > .... So I think a suitable deterrent is needed.
> ...



Balance, Roger. A bullet in the head if they are right wing criminals, a cuddle for the left wing ones.


----------



## jorgoz (27 Feb 2010)

big soft moose":11vxyiyx said:


> jorgoz":11vxyiyx said:
> 
> 
> > big soft moose":11vxyiyx said:
> ...



Well, i've been broken into my car several times and a car stolen (but retrieved) and it still doesn't change my view, from my ivory tower. :roll: 
Ok, it feels weird for the first couple of days, weeks.

Getting caught has nothing to do with what they do or not. As i pointed out in a previous post, the States has the highest death penalty rate and do you see a crime rate decrease there ? So i guess it must really help. 

I just got a new Jamie Oliver book, and in it there is a couple of pages about a bakery shop in the US, and the bakers are the HEAVIEST kind of criminals you can imagine, so there must be other solutions to re-integrate criminals, those who of course want to turn their life around. 

There are numerous projects throughout the world that go about integrating criminals another way, Canada, scandinavia to name but a few, in which they are given, maybe for the first time in their life, a sence of being worth something after all and creating something instead of destroying. If you don't value yourself, how can you value others or others belongings ?

I know it's an idealistic view, but for me it feels like a much more humane one than condeming and judging people, but i know i stand quite alone with this, one of the reasons i normally don't speak about it. It doesn't mean i approve of rape, murder, thievery,... But these acts have existed since all of humanity, now ofcourse everything gets more attention which excites the masses and the masses like a good sensational story these days so they don't have to look at their own way of living.

You get all the sympathy when you're a 'victim', but maybe some criminals are victims of another kind ?


----------



## studders (27 Feb 2010)

devonwoody":83l3ote6 said:


> PeterBassett":83l3ote6 said:
> 
> 
> > A guy from work came up with the idea of the "Chav Blender"
> ...



pipper, he survived.


----------



## studders (27 Feb 2010)

jorgoz":ry7kb13s said:


> You get all the sympathy when you're a 'victim', but maybe some criminals are victims of another kind ?



From what people complain about, consistently, I somehow doubt that victims get all the sympathy.


----------



## devonwoody (27 Feb 2010)

I am certain if you hang a murderer he never does it again, so if you cut off thieves hands they never steel with there hands again.

So its either treat them hard or do the other and give them cuddles.


----------



## studders (27 Feb 2010)

devonwoody":1ynsac42 said:


> So its either treat them hard or do the other and give them cuddles.



OK So, cut off their hands, then shag 'em. That'll teach the blighters and, at the same time, make them feel valued.


----------



## Lons (27 Feb 2010)

_"BTW, los your system wont work because society has changed and wont go backwards. So I think a suitable deterrent is needed."_

yeah I know............. Just tinted glasses again and trying to appese the soft liners!

I think a good sharp shock. End of story. Might not work but the soft option definately doesn't so what the hell.

If you were to ask my missus how many are released and the deliberatley commit a crime within the first week 'cause they want to be back where it's comfortable and I think most people would be shocked

Anyway, it's made me paranoid again and I've just wired in an alarm to my mower shed so that's another £60 the little gits have cost me indirectly. :roll:


----------



## Scouse (27 Feb 2010)

2 German Shepherds (dogs, not Teutonic sheep farmers...) one of which I'm scared of... 

They live outside in a run with shelter, the male hates everything with a pulse, actually he just hates everything period. Never barks, can't wait till some little sh*t jumps the fence... save me feeding him for a week.

El.


----------



## dannykaye (27 Feb 2010)

don't let the basterds (tarentino spelling) grind you down and get a dog, really spiky bushes are a good idea too

I have a sliding mitre saw you can have if you are ever round nottingham


----------



## jimi43 (27 Feb 2010)

GREAT idea!!

Install a roundabout at the bottom of the garden near where they usually break in. Leave the keys in the hairdryer on wheels...no...wait they would have nicked one....and that acts as a distraction and hopefully the little darling scrotes will nut themselves and forget about the shed!

Wonderful...love it...any more ideas?

  :wink: 

Jim


----------



## Dibs-h (28 Feb 2010)

dannykaye":333y24l2 said:


> don't let the basterds (tarentino spelling) grind you down and get a dog, really spiky bushes are a good idea too
> 
> I have a sliding mitre saw you can have if you are ever round nottingham



Cheers Danny (I'm assuming you meant me) - the couple of offers are very much appreciated. I realised last night that my portable nail gun compressor had gone too - that really peeved me off.:evil:

But it's spurred me on to the point that you would probably need to nick a digger and come round to the workshop to get in. Security does cost - but a lot less if built in, than added onto.


----------



## devonwoody (28 Feb 2010)

Hows this to beat your security setup.

They find out when you are on holiday, then put up a Estate agents sold notice outside your property and then turn up 3 days later with a van and start taking stuff away, neighbours dont worry because they think its all legit.


----------



## big soft moose (28 Feb 2010)

devonwoody":1dlxchzl said:


> Hows this to beat your security setup.
> 
> They find out when you are on holiday, then put up a Estate agents sold notice outside your property and then turn up 3 days later with a van and start taking stuff away, neighbours dont worry because they think its all legit.



i think the neighbours might be a bit suspicious of them having to kick in the front door - not to mention that our neighbour know when we are away as they do the bins and post for us (as we do for them)


----------



## Richard D (28 Feb 2010)

Most criminals don't steal because they want (or were denied) cuddles. They do it because they are desperate for their next fix of heroin, and the combined cost of the drugs together with the fact that they have no way of making those sort of amounts in a sort space of time means that they will steal in order to get what they want. People don't risk a couple of years in gaol because they want to play on someone else's Playstation; they do it because they can flog the Playstation for £50 to pay for today's fix, and they worry about tomorrow when it gets here.

If you want to solve the vast bulk of acquisitive crime, you need to do three things. Make it even harder for them to steal from you. Make the drugs cheaper or more available so that they don't have to steal to fund their habit. Finally take away their dependence on drugs. Unfortunately the last two are pretty well mutually exclusive (especially when so many people think that there's pipper all else for them to look forward to beyond the next hit of whatever), so we end up living in Fortress Britain.

I'd execute all of the drug dealers. There's no point in doing much less than that. You have to accept that it could drive the prices up, leading to even more crime committed by the addicts, but eventually the dealers get the message that no matter how much easy money it allows them to make, no matter how many flash cars or bling they get to buy, sooner or later (preferably sooner) they end up with a bullet in the brain. The addicts don't go to prison - they go to secure treatment centres. The bars on the windows are the same, but they come out when they are clean and have something else to occupy their lives with.

But of course someone could rightly point out how prohibition backed up with violence has been tried and doesn't work. Maybe. But I cannot see any other solution, and I've seen enough of the measures tried so far "up close" that I know simply doing the same things over and over will not work. The problem with my solution is that it's extreme, possibly unjust and inhumane, and expensive. The state would have to pay for all of the things I propose, whereas right now the state expects us to simply fit better locks (burglar alarms, guard dogs etc). I suspect that my way would end up cheaper overall, though.


----------



## big soft moose (28 Feb 2010)

Richard D":2l643com said:


> Most criminals don't steal because they want (or were denied) cuddles. They do it because they are desperate for their next fix of heroin, and the combined cost of the drugs together with the fact that they have no way of making those sort of amounts in a sort space of time means that they will steal in order to get what they want. People don't risk a couple of years in gaol because they want to play on someone else's Playstation; they do it because they can flog the Playstation for £50 to pay for today's fix, and they worry about tomorrow when it gets here.
> 
> If you want to solve the vast bulk of acquisitive crime, you need to do three things. Make it even harder for them to steal from you. Make the drugs cheaper or more available so that they don't have to steal to fund their habit. Finally take away their dependence on drugs. Unfortunately the last two are pretty well mutually exclusive (especially when so many people think that there's pipper all else for them to look forward to beyond the next hit of whatever), so we end up living in Fortress Britain.
> 
> ...



Legalise drugs , tax them, and use the tax to pay for rehabilitation of those that slide into addiction. - put the dealers out of business overnight because who is going to buy stepped on possibly poisonous rubbish on the street when they can buy unadulterated from boots the chemist.

however this wont solve the aquisitve crime issue because no longer needing the money to buy drugs wont stop the theiving little pineapples from robbing whatever isnt nailed down - they'll just use the money for something else.


----------



## studders (28 Feb 2010)

I think a significant number of thieving little gits thieve just for the sake of thieving. Whether they want or need what they steal is immaterial.
Almost a hobby really, perhaps we should open a new forum section for them?


----------



## Richard D (28 Feb 2010)

The two problems with legalisation of drugs is that firstly you put out the message that taking them is all right, which is likely to trigger an increase in their use when in fact they can have a very harmful effect across a wide range of people and circumstances, and secondly if the taxes and duties aren't high enough, they won't pay for the harm done (and if too high, you just get the same black market for the smugglers and dealers that we have now with all sorts of added complications). In an ideal world, with people sensible enough to stay the heck away from drugs, it's the right answer, but I've learned never to underestimate how stupid people can be (and rarely is my pessimism misplaced).

Long way off topic now, though


----------



## big soft moose (28 Feb 2010)

Richard D":1s4si6ej said:


> The two problems with legalisation of drugs is that firstly you put out the message that taking them is all right, which is likely to trigger an increase in their use when in fact they can have a very harmful effect



but that is also true of alcohol and tobaco - both of which have harmful effects but are legal (not to mention caffeine and junk food)



> Long way off topic now, though



you mean this thread has a topic :shock:


----------



## big soft moose (28 Feb 2010)

studders":22kqshki said:


> I think a significant number of thieving little gits thieve just for the sake of thieving. Whether they want or need what they steal is immaterial.
> Almost a hobby really, perhaps we should open a new forum section for them?



i think you are right - its like twocking - they arent stealing the cars for money but just for the thrill of driving fast and being chased by the polis -I know at least one force that has implemented a no chase policy and seen their twoc rate drop as a result


----------



## Lons (28 Feb 2010)

Richard D":ruak2rxb said:


> Most criminals don't steal because they want (or were denied) cuddles. They do it because they are desperate for their next fix of heroin, and the combined cost of the drugs together with the fact that they have no way of making those sort of amounts in a sort space of time means that they will steal in order to get what they want. People don't risk a couple of years in gaol because they want to play on someone else's Playstation; they do it because they can flog the Playstation for £50 to pay for today's fix, and they worry about tomorrow when it gets here.
> 
> If you want to solve the vast bulk of acquisitive crime, you need to do three things. Make it even harder for them to steal from you. Make the drugs cheaper or more available so that they don't have to steal to fund their habit. Finally take away their dependence on drugs. Unfortunately the last two are pretty well mutually exclusive (especially when so many people think that there's pipper all else for them to look forward to beyond the next hit of whatever), so we end up living in Fortress Britain.
> 
> ...



Absolutely even though it's extreme.

Currently, the addicts don't dry out in prison - they are supplied with alternative drugs at our expense and on release, arrangements are made that they continue receipt via nominated pharmacists.

Your "solution" cannot be more expensive than the current procedures which virtually ensures that the vast majority re-offend and end up back in prison. Additionally, whilst these folk are out (many on early release), they are often dealing also including to kids - the next generation of addicts.


----------



## wobblycogs (28 Feb 2010)

While I don't disagree with you (apart from maybe executing dealers) I think your view is far too one dimensional. I'm sure there are addicts that come out of jail on early release and immediately go back to their drug habit while also dealing (especially targeting the children at the local school) but I'd bet that isn't the case for most of them. 

Probably a more realistic picture is one in which they come out of jail and then drift back to drug use over a few months as support fades away and they fall back in with their old friends. They might casually deal a little to friends but for the most part they are solitary users. I doubt more than a tiny percentage knowingly deal to minors. 

You see the funny thing is I think most people have this mental picture of a drug user as something like a zombie out of a horror movie. Wandering around in a permanent trance like state moaning "druuuuugs". I've not met many addicts but none of them have been like that even when high and interestingly they all wanted to stop. 

I admit there is a big difference between wanting to stop and actually stopping but we shouldn't forget that there is a person in there and some of them do manage to kick the habit. 

A secure and drug free rehabilitation environment is, I think, probably the right way to treat them. Getting them off the drugs removes the requirement to commit crime. It needs to be a full program though not just a quick in, clean up and out again. These people need to be taken out of the drug world or they will slip back, that probably means finding them jobs and giving them long term counseling and perhaps even drug monitoring. I could even see it going as far a relocating them away from the people they know that are a bad influence. The trouble is this is very expensive but is is more expensive than the crime committed?


----------



## jimi43 (28 Feb 2010)

> These people need to be taken out of the drug world or they will slip back, that probably means finding them jobs and giving them long term counseling and perhaps even drug monitoring. I could even see it going as far a relocating them away from the people they know that are a bad influence. The trouble is this is very expensive but is is more expensive than the crime committed?



I'm sorry...we are too caring here.

WHY should criminals and addicts have a better life than middle England has at the moment. Why should scroungers of the system have what others struggle to have in the recession. Why should someone who has worked all their life and paid tax and NI not be eligible when these scrotes are?

Why!?

This country has gone to the dogs because of do-gooders, liberalism and open door policies.

It won't stop until there is an uprising...and it ain't going to be long.

NOW...I need to go shave some wood to calm myself....  

Always assuming my hard-earned tools are still there where I left them! :roll: 

Jim


----------



## Lons (1 Mar 2010)

_A secure and drug free rehabilitation environment is, I think, probably the right way to treat them. Getting them off the drugs removes the requirement to commit crime. It needs to be a full program though not just a quick in, clean up and out again. These people need to be taken out of the drug world or they will slip back, that probably means finding them jobs and giving them long term counseling and perhaps even drug monitoring. The trouble is this is very expensive but is is more expensive than the crime committed?_

Yeah but that's my point.

The prison environment is not at all drug free.

1). Drugs find their way into prison by all sorts of ingenious means and are used as currency.
The friends and relatives even put them into the bodies of dead birds and animals and throw them over the fence. Some of the other methods are obscene and sickening and I won't post on here.

2). Whilst in prison, the addicts receive free daily methedone and some other substitutes and scream blue murder claiming their rights and complaining to their (free) solicitor if a doctor dares to restrict the dose.

They are regularly urine checked and if other narcotics are detected lose their "medication". The lengths they go to to avoid these tests are unbelievable - I wonder why?

Like it or not, the vast majority of offenders end up back in prison very quickly and often well within the period they are being supported.
I agree the reasons can be many but the current system just does not work!

It is also fact that the largest percentage of crime involving theft is related to addiction.

They do need help - but not at the massive expense of the rest of society IMO.

Why when put in prison as punishment for their crimes, they are allowed to grow long hair, play games and watch TV all night (many of these are paedephiles) not have to work etc etc.

Should be a boot camp imo. Up at 6am army style discipline, physical work - don't care if digging holes and filling them in again, limited TV etc.?
Instead of which we give them gym facilities to make them fit so they can run away faster from the arm of the law.


_I could even see it going as far a relocating them away from the people they know that are a bad influence. _

I'd be very happy about relocation - we used to send them to Australia! Any uninhabited island would do as long as it's a very long way from here and surrounded by sharks.

Makes my blood boil - rant over! :x :x :x


----------



## devonwoody (1 Mar 2010)

How can you stop a person taking drugs?

That is the way forward on the drug problem.

If you are poisoned by a snake bite, you are given anti venom treatment.

How could you cure a drug problem, simple give them a anti drug medication that would incapacitate them for 5 years and then tied up in a straight jacket. 

I'm sure I could find a cure, but I suspect there are people making a lot of money with the present setup and have power not to want change.


----------



## Lons (1 Mar 2010)

The really sad bit about all this is that we have becaome a nation of "grumpy old men".

I personally don't like being that but I now treat everything with scepticism and mistrust until i can verify it myself.

I know I was different years ago and I resent the change which has IMO been caused by todays' society and lack of morals and discipline.

Too far down the road to reverse now and i'm so fed up with it I'm looking at the possibility of semi-retirement in NZ where we found it much more sensible last year. As the UK was 30 years ago.

probably a touch of the "rose tints" at work though!


----------



## wobblycogs (1 Mar 2010)

Jim, I never said a treatment facility had to be a pleasant place to be you have assumed that; probably because I don't want to see the prospective inmates hanging from the nearest tree. 

It really boils down to whether you think a person can be saved / cleaned up or not. It would seem that many of you believe that no drug user can be saved, if that is the case no punishment except death is appropriate because they will always re-offend. I on the other hand believe that there is a full spectrum of drug users from those that really can't be saved and need to be permanently excluded from society to those that use only casually and never cause a problem for society. 

A single response to a problem with a spectrum this broad is inappropriate. I think it is fair to argue that our current spectrum of responses to drug use (note I say use not dealing) is wrong. I would suggest that it's too harsh on a first offence and too weak on repeat offence. 

As for prisons, yes I agree they are too soft at the moment but no I don't agree with medieval torture which is where the suggestions are slowly leading. Prisons should provide the bare minimum required to live (e.g. no TV, no radio, no papers, no visitors, no drugs, no alcohol, etc). At the same time they should provide gainful employment with some reward and education. infractions of prison rules should lead to an increased sentence and being moved away from the general population if necessary. 

The point is this: if you can rehabilitate a criminal so that they become a functional member of society they then pay tax and will slowly pay off their cost to society. If you just throw them in jail for their crime then let them out with even fewer prospects than they went in with and all the same problems they will re-offend and then you have to put them back in prison again. Rinse-repeat all the time adding up the cost of keeping them.


----------



## Dibs-h (1 Mar 2010)

Just noticed something in the school playground this morning - there is a garage just on the other side of the boundary and it's now "ringed" by scaffolding and roofers are replacing the tiles.

This appears to have gone up in shortly after my "visit" - wonder if the erection of the scaffolding and roofing and the theft are coincidental or related. I was wondering of the chance of a junkie having 2' (min) bolt cutters or a scaffolder\roofer\tradesmen having some?

With respect to what you would do with theives\dealers - a couple of 100 yrs ago, they'd have been dragged out and killed. Now before someone goes on about we are civilised - I disagree. Exactly how more civilised has society become in the last 200 or so yrs?

I think the idea of targeting the top of the food chain is interesting - as well as providing treatment. But once the treatment finishes - does middle England bear the cost for ever - i.e. once clean, do we pay for their new life, as the old one full of dregs, no-hopers is bound to drag them back down - so perhaps a bit of expensive social engineering?

IIRC Switzerland provides free heroin in controlled environments - it would be interesting to read more about that - i.e. what's happened to crime rates, addiction rates, etc. Once the profit disappears - no incentive for dealers, but perhaps they'd step into something else - crystal meth, which is making inroads into the UK.

As time goes on - I do find myself agreeing with the Eastern method of dealing with dealers - execution. For larger scale dealers - the motivation is solely financial, I'd struggle to see any other dimension - unlike with junkies, where it could be argued that they are in the grip of an addiction that will make them do things that normally they would never under any circumstances. Dealers - exactly how would they reform? They know exactly the costs to people of what they are peddling - so why bother?


----------



## Richard D (1 Mar 2010)

wobblycogs":278oterh said:


> Jim, I never said a treatment facility had to be a pleasant place to be you have assumed that; probably because I don't want to see the prospective inmates hanging from the nearest tree.
> 
> It really boils down to whether you think a person can be saved / cleaned up or not. It would seem that many of you believe that no drug user can be saved, if that is the case no punishment except death is appropriate because they will always re-offend. I on the other hand believe that there is a full spectrum of drug users from those that really can't be saved and need to be permanently excluded from society to those that use only casually and never cause a problem for society.



You misunderstood me; I was all for executing the dealers, not the users. The users go into secure rehabilitation program. Treat the addicts; kill the dealers. Simple. I've seen many people who have kicked the habit. But it's probably fewer than 10% of those drug-addicted offenders who re-offend on release.


----------



## wobblycogs (1 Mar 2010)

One of the problems I have with these extreme punishments is that they don't seem to work - at least not in isolation. In the nineteenth century people were regularly being deported, hung, given hard labour and locked away for years on end in terrible conditions but the crime rate was apparently much higher than it is today. 

That can only lead to the conclusion that punishment alone is not a very good way to bring the crime rate down. Contrast that with today when we have have a weak punishment system and a comparatively low crime rate and it would seem at first glance that lighter punishments leads to less crime which is a bizarre conclusion. 

Viewing this as a one variable problem (e.g. punishment is directly linked to crime rate with no other factors mattering) will lead to the wrong conclusion about what to do. I would suggest that equality and opportunity for personal development also play a big part in determining crime rate. 

I'd just like to say on a personal note: I don't feel that I'm a big softy liberal, I'd happily support any punishment however extreme if it can be shown to actually work at stopping future crime whilest also not damaging society as a whole. It worries me to see the rise in the number of people who seem to see punishment as retribution especially in cases where they weren't directly involved in the crime. We have to be careful not to become little Eichmanns in our pursuit of an ideal.


----------



## RogerS (1 Mar 2010)

wobblycogs":2b6ayyah said:


> One of the problems I have with these extreme punishments is that they don't seem to work - at least not in isolation. In the nineteenth century people were regularly being deported, hung, given hard labour and locked away for years on end in terrible conditions but the crime rate was apparently much higher than it is today. .....



Yes but you're looking at that in isolation. Then there wasn't the welfare state, unemployed benefit, supportive (such that it is) social infrastructure. So your analogy is wrong.


----------



## wobblycogs (1 Mar 2010)

Erm, that's my point. Looking at it in isolation is the problem. The only solution people are coming up with at the moment is ever more severe punishment but that has been tried in the past and it didn't work (at least not very well). 

I think punsihment of repeat offenders is too light at present but that doesn't change the fundamental fact that this problem is a lot more complicated than: more punishment = less crime.


----------



## Jake (1 Mar 2010)

Let's just nuke the whole nation, it's going to the dogs anyway.


----------



## Dibs-h (1 Mar 2010)

Jake":1e34l305 said:


> Let's just nuke the whole nation, it's going to the dogs anyway.



Let me at least finish my bunker first! :lol:


----------



## wobblycogs (1 Mar 2010)

By the time you have finished filling it with food and water to survive the end of the world you won't have any space left to do woodwork. Doh! Sounds like a really good excuse to build a second even bigger shop - for the sake of your family of course.


----------



## Dibs-h (1 Mar 2010)

wobblycogs":247vcp6h said:


> By the time you have finished filling it with food and water to survive the end of the world you won't have any space left to do woodwork. Doh! Sounds like a really good excuse to build a second even bigger shop - for the sake of your family of course.



:-$ - aka new garage and a basement.


----------



## Bluekingfisher (1 Mar 2010)

Lons":5eujwcsj said:


> Bluekingfisher":5eujwcsj said:
> 
> 
> > Soon all the decent law abiding, tax paying, decent folks will be on the inside while the criminals will be on the outside, most probably in your home which has now been possessed to house the poor unfortunates.
> ...



Unfortunately Lons, everything in NZ may seem rosy, as in England of 50 years ago, but as far as burglary goes, NZ has the highest rates for burglary per head of population in the civilised world. No idea why that is, just a useless stat I picked up (Useless unless you are a Kiwi) I have no idea Burglary rates for Oz though


----------



## Bluekingfisher (1 Mar 2010)

Dibs-h":hqedo3up said:


> dannykaye":hqedo3up said:
> 
> 
> > don't let the basterds (tarentino spelling) grind you down and get a dog, really spiky bushes are a good idea too
> ...



Security does cost, but so does your tools and your insurance premiums if you don't take reasonable steps to protect your kit.

I visited a lady who had suffered a burglary through her patio doors. She invited me in and took great delight in telling me all about the £22K kitchen she was in the process of having installed. Very nice too I thought but where did they get in? over here she said. The patio doors were 30mm x 30mm soft wood frames with single panes of glass, held shut with a close peg pushed through two eye bolts. I suggested she may wish to upgrade her security regards the doors and locks. I can't she said, I have ran out of money. Kind of says alot when someone can spend £22K on a kitchen then 22 pence on security, of course you can't boast to your friends about your security system now can you. 

Security is usually the last item marked on the budget list and receives the least funds or consideration until you become a victim. Walk down any street and look at what people have for security. The houses with the alarm boxes, grilles, security lighting etc I would wager have all suffered from burglaries. I have yet to meet someone who has taken the precaution and not suffered. It's not a case of bolting the stable door because if you give criminals the chance they will take it.

Did hear about the sheriff in one of the Southern states in the USA. All the prisoners are made to work, they are made to wear pink boiler suits to identify them to the public that their liberty has been withdrawn. They are not allowed to smoke because it is bad for them, not allowed coffee because caffeine is bad for them. They are housed in tents because the financial burden is less to the public and because "our boys in the gulf serving our country have to endure such conditions so you sure ain't going to have accommodation better than theirs. He tried to stop them from having TV but the tree huggers felt the inmates would benefit from TV. He now allows TV but only the News channel and the disney channel and for only 1 hour a day.

surprisingly he hasn't yet had one re-offender in the three years he has been in the position. The local community reelect him every year.


----------



## Bluekingfisher (1 Mar 2010)

wobblycogs":18tvqc9n said:


> Erm, that's my point. Looking at it in isolation is the problem. The only solution people are coming up with at the moment is ever more severe punishment but that has been tried in the past and it didn't work (at least not very well).
> 
> I think punsihment of repeat offenders is too light at present but that doesn't change the fundamental fact that this problem is a lot more complicated than: more punishment = less crime.



They can't commit crime if they are in jail, at least not against Mr & Mrs Mortgage


----------



## studders (1 Mar 2010)

Your comment about the kitchen and the clothes peg made me chuckle but, you are right. 
I wanted to install CCTV at my Garage, which is very easily accessible, but not visible to me from the house. When I saw the cheapest solution was over £200 I didn't do it. 
Stupid stupid stupid. The cost of a break in, even if they only took hand power tools would be way in excess of that.


----------



## wobblycogs (1 Mar 2010)

I can't argue with the logic that they can't commit crime (against the general public at least) if they are in jail but like wise you can't argue that keeping them in jail doesn't cause a financial burden on the country.

It's interesting that you bring up jails in America because of all the developed countries I would say they have the worst relationship with crime. In December 2008 754 per 100k people were behind bars in America giving them the highest reported incareration rate in the world. I don't think anyone here would argue that America is safer than the UK and we only have an incarceration rate of 150 per 100k.

More worryingly though is the trend in America to force or at least coerce prisoners to work for very little reward making items that are then sold for profit. It's easy to see how that would cause a demand for more prisoners.


----------



## big soft moose (1 Mar 2010)

wobblycogs":1bsxmcr8 said:


> I can't argue with the logic that they can't commit crime (against the general public at least) if they are in jail but like wise you can't argue that keeping them in jail doesn't cause a financial burden on the country.
> .



hence my suggestion that we shoot the little bar stewards in the head (at least the repeat offenders) a 9mm round and a grave is a lot cheaper than food and board for life

or if we baulk at that we could draft the little sods into the infantry and sent them to afghanistan to let the taliban do the shooting for us

as to the number of people in jail compared to america - i wonder how the figure compare if you include those given non custodial sentences, cautions, asbos etc


----------



## Bluekingfisher (1 Mar 2010)

It could be because the developed world is full of people with goodies worth stealing. As our prosperity has increased so with it our material gain, matched directly with the increase in crime rates. Supply and demand I guess but people have said to me, I don't think it's worth beefing up my security because I have nothing worth stealing. Everyone has something worth something to somebody. Besides, Billy the burglar doesn't know you have nothing to steal before he breaks in, so at best you will have to suffer the aggravation and indignity associated with a break in which by the way can come to many hundreds of pounds in damages alone


----------



## Bluekingfisher (1 Mar 2010)

Big Moose, I think you have stated what many people think but are afraid to say it for fear of being labelled a nazi or a psycho but the do gooder brigade.

While I think some of them are worth saving, individuals convicted of murder serve no purpose and should be dealt with in a more robust fashion.

For example the vast majority of murders are not picked up by the media and brought to public attention unless there is some aggravating circumstance like and child or other vulnerable is involved. 

My point is, the term life sentence represents no such thing in the UK. A life term is 15 years. Should the offender keep under the radar while in the nick he/she will only serve half that term (3/4 in Scotland) so here in England they are back on the streets in 7 years. Scary stuff


----------



## studders (1 Mar 2010)

That's a disgrace. Unless there is an appeal or new evidence then those found guilty of Murder should be given Life and it should mean just that, no parole.


----------



## wobblycogs (1 Mar 2010)

Bluekingfisher":1kf27nhq said:


> It could be because the developed world is full of people with goodies worth stealing.


 
This can't be the case because it would imply that Americans must be on average about 5 times richer than us (they are richer but not by that much) and it doesn't explain why some poor countries have high incarceration rates. 

Shooting all offenders is one solution but fortunately I don't think the majority would go for it, at least not for any length of time.In fact I think it would probably cause the collapse of society. Imagine the scenario: little Jimmy the son of the prime minister (probably a dictator by this point) commits a crime, unable to put his own son to death he finds a way around the punishment. Cue the uprising unless of course you are willing to suppress that with force as well? 

There are a small number of criminals that should never be allowed back in to society. Whether we should put them down or not I don't know but for the vast majority I don't see state sanctioned violence / killing as the solution.


----------



## Dibs-h (1 Mar 2010)

It's difficult to pin point what drives theft - yes there's the obvious one, junkies to get their next fix, but they would sell their toddler if it came down to it.

It's the rest - if they're not junkies then (to my mind) the necessary psychological checks and balances that in most people would prevent theft, must either not exist or have been overcome. Now if they don't exist, is it due to upbringing (poor, violent, abuse, etc.) or do we have a personality defect (psychopath, sociapath, etc.)?

Or if they've been overcome - is it due to the belief\perception that working for stuff is harder and takes ages - as opposed to liberating stuff from others.

One could replace theft with other sorts of crime.

I do find it difficult to accept that someone who sells drugs on a large scale, isn't a junkie and acquires a £1/2M house and lifestyle gets <10 yrs - when the lives ruined by that enterprise (if you could call it that) get nothing, i.e. no real justice.

A bullet would be more fitting and send a far greater message to society that not only must justice be served, but it must be *seen *to be served. 

Strange how most MP's - i.e the lawmakers live in really nice parts of town\s, have 24 hr protection, house alarms linked to Police stations, etc. - question is "What the turnip do they know about the real world?" pineappling cloud cuckoo land!

Sorry for the rant.


----------



## Bluekingfisher (1 Mar 2010)

I don't think anyone is advocating a Judge Dred shoot em on sight state backed policy. What we are saying is the punishment should fit the crime and it is clearly not. We are not even allowed to call them prisoners anymore FFs they are inmates???? Remember these individuals make their own choice, it is not compulsory to commit crime regardless of your needs.

As a society we need to make them feel ashamed and afraid for their actions instead it is the other way round. People are afraid to go out to walk there dog as one contributor mentioned, why should that be?? The hands of the police are tied. When I joined 25 years ago the most important aspect of policing was initiating and using common sense and use of judgement. To give a property holder a dressing down for protecting his home and family is an example of the way the young cops are now taught. When I tell them the way it used to be they gaze at me in disbelief, I am a dinosaur as far as they are concerned and way out of touch. What my fear is, is the loss of trust of the public. I still feel, as the police we still have that respect and trust from the communities (in general) we police because we are approachable and fair. The way it's going we will become alienated and once the trust is gone, it's gone for good.


----------



## studders (1 Mar 2010)

Dibs-h":4jx2y972 said:


> "What the turnip do they know about the real world?" pineappling cloud cuckoo land!
> 
> Sorry for the rant.



Be fair, some them have spent a whole week living in High Rise Land as an experiment to find out what it's like living on a low income etc... etc.. , surely that makes them experts?


----------



## studders (1 Mar 2010)

Bluekingfisher":jw75idcb said:


> The way it's going we will become alienated and once the trust is gone, it's gone for good.



Sad to say that has already happened, at least for me, and yes.. it was several instances involving young, and seemingly rather stupid, PC's that did it.
I know I shouldn't judge all Coppers because of it but the 'Back 'em up' attitude from more senior officers, no matter how twatish they've been, certainly doesn't help.
But that is rather another topic.


----------



## Bluekingfisher (1 Mar 2010)

On the topic of shootings and bullets, I can't forget the question put to the trooper during the investigation of the Iranian Embassy seige.

When asked "Why did you shoot Mr ^&&%^^&&*^ 13 times,"?

his reply was...."Because I ran out of bullets"!

Mr *&^&*^&^^)^ hasn't been invoved in any more crimes!


----------



## loz (1 Mar 2010)

Bluekingfisher":19rdqcxk said:


> On the topic of shootings and bullets, I can't forget the question put to the trooper during the investigation of the Iranian Embassy seige.
> 
> When asked "Why did you shoot Mr ^&&%^^&&*^ 13 times,"?
> 
> ...



I think that was a gibralter quote not the Emabassy......


----------



## Bluekingfisher (1 Mar 2010)

studders":1dgaooqe said:


> Bluekingfisher":1dgaooqe said:
> 
> 
> > The way it's going we will become alienated and once the trust is gone, it's gone for good.
> ...



In reality that couldn't be further from the truth, senior officers don't get to be senior because they are good policemen, it's because they make use of the system which involves not being held to account and ducking the issue. So to back someone up for a mistake is as far as they are concerned, putting their head on the block 

We have a saying, Those who can do, those who can't, take promotion.

But I have to tell you, the public can be incredibly stupid at times too and if I took the view of that all of the public were the same I wouldn't see the point in coming to work. We all make mistakes but when we make it habitual, it's inexcusable


----------



## Bluekingfisher (1 Mar 2010)

loz":2vt50eyc said:


> Bluekingfisher":2vt50eyc said:
> 
> 
> > On the topic of shootings and bullets, I can't forget the question put to the trooper during the investigation of the Iranian Embassy seige.
> ...



I stand corrected


----------



## jimi43 (1 Mar 2010)

I think the police in this country are something to be very very proud of. Nations all over the world are in awe of our force and the way it operates without weapons (in general) and does such a calm and collected job.

I would go to the help of a copper any day...even if I am knee high to an A***'s jock strap.

They are not the problem...it's the bleedin' heart liberals...god bless 'em who came out of the drug filled 60s with love, peace and flowers and think they can "fix" everything. Utter Codds Wallop.

We should put the little tikes in labour camps...barbed wire...armed guards...German Shepherds....jack boots....guns...more guns...oh and whips...

Phew...I feel MUCH better now....

So....what did you get nicked from your shed this week then guys?

Anything interesting?

  

Jim


----------



## devonwoody (1 Mar 2010)

Those oil rigs in the north sea are running out of use, put the darlings on them, remove all heating of course and 21 day deliveries only. I dont even mind an industrial dispute or two of 6 month duration by boatmen.


----------



## big soft moose (1 Mar 2010)

Bluekingfisher":1wxi5x4m said:


> loz":1wxi5x4m said:
> 
> 
> > Bluekingfisher":1wxi5x4m said:
> ...



there was also the american sniper in vietnam who when asked by an appaled jounalist "how could you shoot a woman" - replied " women dont run as fast as men so you dont lead them as much"

and also the sniper (again american but this time in afghanistan) who was asked "what tdo you feel when you shoot a terrorist" and replied "recoil"


----------



## big soft moose (1 Mar 2010)

wobblycogs":2aplox5x said:


> Shooting all offenders is one solution but fortunately I don't think the majority would go for it, at least not for any length of time.In fact I think it would probably cause the collapse of society. Imagine the scenario: little Jimmy the son of the prime minister (probably a dictator by this point) commits a crime, unable to put his own son to death he finds a way around the punishment. Cue the uprising unless of course you are willing to suppress that with force as well?
> .



I did say only for the incorrigible and the chances of the prime ministers son being an incorrigible criminal are remote (the press would have a feild day very early on in his career of crime - remember ewan aka urine blair)

but if he was indeed incorrigible if the system is working propperly the hustice system should be seperate from politics and therefore little jimmy should be put up against a wall with the others


----------



## newt (1 Mar 2010)

What really gets me is, some of todays youths just don't give a toss about anyone or anything, but when they go to prison the state have to care about their welfare, TV, good diet, heating etc. No wonder its take and no give.


----------



## devonwoody (1 Mar 2010)

OK here is the ultimate solution, build an Alcatraz type prison in the Bristol Channel, equip it with pedal turbines operated by drug addicts to supply the national grid with electricity, 5 years minimum for addicts dealers until they die. 

They would pay their way with energy,(feed them on seaweed, and have a rat farm for protein) and accept all illegal immigrants for accommodation as well.

Problem solved apart from appeasing the do goodies, ( I would consider sending some of the outspoken ones there as well).[/img]


----------



## studders (1 Mar 2010)

jimi43":3qkfpzkl said:


> I would go to the help of a copper any day...even if I am knee high to an A***'s jock strap.
> 
> Jim



There was a time when I would have done so without hesitation, I'd have to think twice now though, which in itself is sad.
What if I injured the person the copper was struggling with, would I get prosecuted for it?
What if Police reinforcements arrive and they see a colleague struggling with two men, will I get restrained and arrested by mistake?
What happens if the copper being assaulted can't recall clearly what happened and thinks I may have been one of his attackers?
It's the same with helping a lost kid these days, I would have to think very carefully before getting involved.
These are not far fetched possibilities.


----------



## jimi43 (1 Mar 2010)

devonwoody":49jo3hk8 said:


> OK here is the ultimate solution, build an Alcatraz type prison in the Bristol Channel, equip it with pedal turbines operated by drug addicts to supply the national grid with electricity, 5 years minimum for addicts dealers until they die.
> 
> They would pay their way with energy,(feed them on seaweed, and have a rat farm for protein) and accept all illegal immigrants for accommodation as well.
> 
> Problem solved apart from appeasing the do goodies, ( I would consider sending some of the outspoken ones there as well).[/img]



I like this man!!!

8)


----------



## jlawrence (1 Mar 2010)

unfortunately studders I'm with you on this one.
If I happened to find someone robbing my house, then if I was able to I can guarantee he wouldn't be walking out of there. But there's a massive difference between that and leaping to someone's defense in a public situation.
I would stop and help any lost child - but if and only if I wasn't alone.


----------



## newt (1 Mar 2010)

[/quote]

What if Police reinforcements arrive and they see a colleague struggling with two men, will I get restrained and arrested by mistake?
.[/quote]

I dont think you need to worry as a risk assessment would need to be carried out first.  

I would still help out the police.


----------



## wobblycogs (1 Mar 2010)

DW, I hope very much that you are joking and you would even consider treating an animal the way you are suggesting we deal with criminals. You are suggesting working and or starving them to death in forced labour camps. Put down the Daily Mail for a moment and really think about what you are suggesting because I see little difference between that and the concentration camps or the gulag - ideas that are considered some of the darkest humanity has ever come up with. 

I ask you all as well what if it was your son or daughter that was being sent to one of these camps? What if they had had a quick spliff (it is estimated that about 25% of 16 to 24 years old have taken cannabis in the last year) and got caught, would you still feel it was right that they did 5 years of hard labour? 

What if your best friends child got caught selling a £5 bag to someone. Could you look them in the eye and say you feel it's right that their child is worked to death? 

It's also rather easy to suggest these terrible punishments when you don't think you or your family are going to ever be on the receiving end but history shows us that what goes around has a habit of coming around.


----------



## Dibs-h (1 Mar 2010)

jlawrence":2i1qipuj said:


> unfortunately studders I'm with you on this one.
> If I happened to find someone robbing my house, then if I was able to I can guarantee he wouldn't be walking out of there.



+1 on that



jlawrence":2i1qipuj said:


> I would stop and help any lost child - but if and only if I wasn't alone.



I'd always stop - get the Police (thankfully W Yorks Police have a non-emergency nbr) on the mobile at the same time.

Not stopping and reading about something awful - you'd never have a continuous nights sleep ever again.


----------



## studders (1 Mar 2010)

Dibs-h":2kfo72fo said:


> .
> 
> Not stopping and reading about something awful - you'd never have a continuous nights sleep ever again.



True, and I hope if it ever happened my 'duty' would come before my 'What if's'
It probably would, in fact did on one occasion when I helped out an Off Licence Manager who was struggling with someone who tried to rob the till. But that could have turned out bad for me as the scrote claimed to the Police that I'd punched him, I was going to when he tried to bite me, but I didn't. Luckily they took no notice but, what if they had done?


----------



## Jake (1 Mar 2010)

Nothing is likely to have happened if you punched him. Even if the police had been inclined to charge, the CPS would be very unlikely to prosecute as it clearly would have been reasonable force in the circumstances. 

There is of course a distinction between that and shooting him in the back, or giving him, with the help of another, a sustained beating with a cricket bat to the extent that it snaps in three and leaves him with brain damage.

Much angst is caused by a failure to be able to distinguish between the two, and by extrapolating the consequences of murderous or nearly murderous revenge attacks to genuine acts of self defence. 

Perhaps the best thing would be for those who cannot distinguish between the two to try (a) punching themselves in the face, and then (b) battering themselves nearly to death before shooting themselves in the back. Somewhere near the conclusion of (b) they may (even if briefly) get a glimpse of the distinction that the law draws.


----------



## studders (1 Mar 2010)

Jake":3v1gbilq said:


> Nothing is likely to have happened if you punched him. Even if the police had been inclined to charge, the CPS would be very unlikely to prosecute as it clearly would have been reasonable force in the circumstances.



Thanks, that's sort of reassuring to know. I still wouldn't like the thought of being arrested and possibly charged though. Hopefully it wouldn't stop me from doing the same again if need be, I dunno??


----------



## Jake (1 Mar 2010)

Still best not to punch him unless you have to. 

There are all sorts of risks, but this one wouldn't be my concern in that situation - I'd be more concerned about the scrote pulling a knife or something than the legal aftermath.


----------



## studders (1 Mar 2010)

Jake":d8u6t9k4 said:


> I'd be more concerned about the scrote pulling a knife or something t



He claimed he had an infected needle (he didn't) and was going to stab us with it; Charming Fella that he was. But the knife thing didn't even occur to me at the time. :shock: 
It might in future.


----------



## big soft moose (1 Mar 2010)

studders":3vpnev4c said:


> Jake":3vpnev4c said:
> 
> 
> > I'd be more concerned about the scrote pulling a knife or something t
> ...



if he'd claimed that to me i would have done him some serious damage ( the best, as in most effective, way to stop a scrote deploying a weapon is to break both his collar bones, or so ive "heard" - clearly im not admitting or inciting any illegal act or intention) as a precaution.

if you should happen to do this , or to shoot him in the back, give him a sustained beating wioth a cricket bat or whatever - then i'd be inclined to be away on your toes before the police arrive - that way they cant charge you even if they wanted to

a mate of mine once laid a scrote out with a frozen leg of lamb - but the scrote in question had a machette and was holding up the convenience store where my mate was manager, sio the police decided it was justifiable even tho scrotey wound up with a depressed frascture of the cheek bone.


----------



## Dibs-h (1 Mar 2010)

Jake":zadoiujw said:


> There is of course a distinction between that and shooting him in the back, or giving him, with the help of another, a sustained beating with a cricket bat to the extent that it snaps in three and leaves him with brain damage.



Much was made of the case you refer to Jake - any man coming home to be confronted with several armed men who have tied up your wife and daughter and are threatening to kill them - what would any father\husband do?

As for brain damage - that was rather over-egged don't you think. The scrote had 50 previous and attented court that day himself - apparently none the worse for wear.

The mistake the homeowner made was to deal with the intruder outside. Had a cricker bat or any other implement been used inside the house and even resulted in the decapitation of the intruder - I doubt anything would have come it - certainly not to the extent it has\had as the case you refer to.

It's nothing to do with what you know\feel - it's all down to what be proved. And sometimes what happened and what can be proved isn't always the same.


----------



## big soft moose (1 Mar 2010)

Dibs-h":2w3usdtg said:


> Much was made of the case you refer to Jake - any man coming home to be confronted with several armed men who have tied up your wife and daughter and are threatening to kill them - what would any father\husband do?
> 
> .



Too right - in my case if they were threatening to harm swimbo i'd happily shoot them dead (having first bludgeoned one with a cricket bat and taken his firearm) then deal with the aftermath afterwards

whether i would call the police or go the woodchipper/pig farm route is a debateable point - and would depend on how good my story was looking.

Mind you given that swimbo is in to her tae kwan do there'd be a better than even chance of me arriving home to find several disarmed men lying on the floor groaning and waiting for their testicals to redescend


----------



## Jake (1 Mar 2010)

Dibs-h":16lq0zof said:


> As for brain damage - that was rather over-egged don't you think.



I'm not a doctor and I have no knowledge of his symptoms. All the reports said he suffered sufficient brain damage not to be fit to plead to his own offences, which means he would have undergone some serious testing by multiple psychiatrists before that was accepted by the prosecution. And its a pretty tough test to have to pass - criminals don't escape prosecution because they are a bit or even very stupid.



> The scrote had 50 previous



No arguments he was a serious scrote and seems to have committed very serious offences that day (albeit he hasn't been convicted).



> and attented court that day himself - apparently none the worse for wear.



Did you speak to him, or do you just mean he was able to walk?



> The mistake the homeowner made was to deal with the intruder outside. Had a cricker bat or any other implement been used inside the house and even resulted in the decapitation of the intruder - I doubt anything would have come it - certainly not to the extent it has\had as the case you refer to.



I agree. 

For instance: http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/ ... guisher.do

The pair of them in that other case chasing him down and giving him a savage revenge beating was far more than they were entitled to do. They could use all the force that was necessary to defend themselves at the time and then to effect a citizen's arrest after they had caught him and there would have been no issues (unless there was a miscarriage of justice).


----------



## big soft moose (1 Mar 2010)

Jake":v9cq9050 said:


> The pair of them in that other case chasing him down and giving him a savage revenge beating was far more than they were entitled to do.



the morale of that story being that if you do get red mist and chase down and beat twelve grades of grit out of a theiving scrote - dont call the police and dont hang about until some else does - have it away on your toesies and call an ambulance anonymously from a pay phone once you are some distance away (this may seeem unecessarily considerate but its in your interests not to have him die from hypothermia in the street.)

if there were witnesses to you chasing him make sure you get your story straight at an early stage

"no constable i just chased him for a bit, he disapeared over that way, ive no idea how he came to get the **** kicked out of him..."

If there is no hard evidence conecting you to him and you dont incriminate yourself then you wont get convicted - chances are good you wont even get charged - especially if you are of previously good character and hes a scrote with 50 previous convictions.


----------



## jlawrence (1 Mar 2010)

I disagree Jake.
My personal belief (and to hell with the law on this) is that if anyone enters my house and threatens the life of my wife and kids (whether I'm there or not) then I am duty bound to find them and draw the line exactly where ever I felt like. Would I lose any sleep over it - no not a single jot.
I doubt very much whether he'd be left with brain damage. If I hit someone in the head with my cricket bat there wouldn't be any chance of doctors getting involved afterwards - not that I would risk damaging my baby by hitting a person with it.
I can think of much better implements lying around the house and workshop to go after someone with rather than using something like a cricket bat.

Added:
It might of been more than they were legally entitled to do, but imo it was exactly what they were duty bound to do in order to protect their loved ones.


----------



## Jake (1 Mar 2010)

Well watch out then, because you would be convicted of murder which will really screw up your family even further.


----------



## jlawrence (1 Mar 2010)

Then so be it.

There's nothing to say that you have to hunt them down immediately. Assuming the police could even be bothered to find them, it would be sensible to let the pathetic punishment system in this country take it's ounce first. Then when they've been let out after a ridiculously short period of time they can f*** off and meet their maker under which ever stone he/she happens to reside.


----------



## jlawrence (1 Mar 2010)

The punishments dished out under our legal system are getting so ridiculous that you're going to see this sort of thing happening more and more and more until such a time as someone actually sits up and does something about it.


----------



## wobblycogs (1 Mar 2010)

jlawrence":1euyctyl said:


> not that I would risk damaging my baby by hitting a person with it.



I agree you really shouldn't hit people with babies. A baby is far to soft and light it would be like using a jelly hammer. Instead you should try hitting them adults and preferably those that workout a lot.


----------



## studders (1 Mar 2010)

I 'think' I wouldn't go further than a 'Like for Like' reprisal should I catch someone attacking my family. Hurt them - I hurt you, kill them - you die too. Bit difficult to say though what would happen in reality. I'm not sure I would be considering 'legal' repercussions in the heat of the moment.


----------



## Jake (1 Mar 2010)

jlawrence":z6dbbejp said:


> Then so be it.



That shows that your motive is not to care for your family at all. You are seeking vengeance. It's an ego thing, not something done in the best interests of your family.



> There's nothing to say that you have to hunt them down immediately. Assuming the police could even be bothered to find them, it would be sensible to let the pathetic punishment system in this country take it's ounce first. Then when they've been let out after a ridiculously short period of time they can f*** off and meet their maker under which ever stone he/she happens to reside.



Likely to reduce your defences to a murder charge even further as you will be less able to plead provocation in mitigation.

Fortunately you are just spouting off on a forum (which is fair enough) and all this is academic.


----------



## Jake (1 Mar 2010)

I came across this which is quite interesting



> *THE following is the full transcript of the remarks of Judge John Reddihough, who sentenced Munir and Tokeer Hussain to prison at Reading Crown Court yesterday.*
> 
> Munir Hussain, on the night of 3 September 2008, you and your family were the victims of a serious and wicked offence, when at least three masked men entered your home armed with knives and threatened you and your family, possibly intent on robbing you.
> 
> ...



Bearing in mind that the sentence was reduced yet further by the Court of Appeal that all seems quite reasonable to me.

Y'all going to have to get used to the notion that we don't live in the Wild West you know.[/b]


----------



## jlawrence (1 Mar 2010)

Jake":39bsodv7 said:


> Fortunately you are just spouting off on a forum (which is fair enough) and all this is academic.



I do so hope you're right.
I hope never to find myself in the actual situation of finding out what I would actually do.


----------



## big soft moose (1 Mar 2010)

jlawrence":gfxxfvp5 said:


> Jake":gfxxfvp5 said:
> 
> 
> > Fortunately you are just spouting off on a forum (which is fair enough) and all this is academic.
> ...



Actually I have been in a similar situation and do know what I did , and what i would do differently if (god forbid) it ever happened again

when I was 19 my then girlfreind (and very near to being fiancee) was killed in a terrorist incident - what did i do about this , well apart from getting heavily into booze and substances and having a near breakdown, I actually did nothing ( Tho i did try to join the army as a squaddie (having been previously washed from POC before the incident occured) , they -quite propperly as i see now- wouldnt take me ) - but the guilt of doing nothing and not acting "as a man should" very nearly destroyed my life and it took me nearly ten years to get my head together and my life back on rack

therefore if anything similar happened to swimbo, and it is incredibly hard for me to even entertain the idea fior long enough to write this, i am quite certain that i would take retributive steps and i would do my utmost not to get caught in the act


----------



## Lons (1 Mar 2010)

Bluekingfisher":1n793udu said:


> Lons":1n793udu said:
> 
> 
> > Bluekingfisher":1n793udu said:
> ...



Yes I think the tints were being worn at the time although the real attraction was pace of life, lack of traffic and very nice people. (petrol at 78p didn't hurt either)!
I was also impressed by OZ. Spent 10 days in Sydney before moving North to Cairns and on to Brisbane and Noosa and compared to most of the UK cities I have visited and including my home city Newcastle, it felt very safe indeed as well as being clean.

I'm sure there must be no go areas but we wandered around at night without looking over our shoulders unlike Newcastle for instance.


----------



## jlawrence (1 Mar 2010)

Jake, you are right in that we don't live in the 'wild west' - whether there was a wild west is another discussion.

However:


> The sentencing guidelines for this offence, the maximum sentence for which is life imprisonment, indicate that usually when such serious injuries result from such an offence, a very long sentence of imprisonment of seven years or more should be imposed after a trial





> However, if persons were permitted to take the law into their own hands and inflict their own instant and violent punishment on an apprehended offender rather than letting justice run its course, then the rule of law which are the hallmarks of a civilised society, would collapse. The courts must make it clear that such conduct is criminal and unacceptable.



Perhaps the judge would like to look at the two sentences he chose to use.
1) life meaning a very long sentence of seven year or more
2) The courts must make it clear that such conduct is criminal and unacceptable

I think you'd find that to the vast majority of people in this country it is wholly unacceptable for life to mean anything other than life.
You could argue (probably not legally) as he was sentenced to life that when he was released he was legally dead - after all he had served a life sentence.

Seven years (or even 30 months in this case) is not a way of showing that 'such conduct is criminal and unacceptable'. I'd suggest that it is actually showing that the law is completely and utterly incapable of operating in these circumstances and what happened was pretty much acceptable to the society which the law is duty bound to protect thus you get a slap on the wrist.


----------



## TrimTheKing (1 Mar 2010)

Jake":31l8n40p said:


> I came across this which is quite interesting
> 
> <snip>
> 
> ...


While I agree with many (not all) of the things being said about what we 'would' do in such circumstances reading this has just changed the opinion I had of this case from what I knew from newspaper reports.

My only comment would be that if only more Judges were as sensible and considered as this one then we wouldn't be having this discussion because we would all have confidence in the justice system.

Having been broken into in May 2006 and coming downstairs at around 3am to be confronted by a bloke in my living room and another in my kitchen and chasing them out of my house and down the street I can honestly say I don't know what I would have done had I caught either.

The thing that stopped me, milliseconds before realising that I was naked with no shoes on chasing two blokes down my street :shock: , was that my wife was still in the house and I wasn't certain that there were no more of them in the house still!!!

I legged it back and luckily she was fine. Now I am not a violent man, but I have been a very successful full contact TaeKwonDo champion as a tenager and trained for years with boxers at Champs Camp in Moss Side (purely for fitness, I never faught other than sparring) and can handle myself if need be. I can honestly say that I have never been as furious as that night and cannot say for certain what I would have done had I caught the one that I got within 5 yards of.

To be honest looking back on it now I am glad I didn't because there's a fair chance there would be one of those reports up on the web with my name on it...


----------



## wobblycogs (1 Mar 2010)

I would imagine the jury found that a very difficult case to reach a desicion on. For me the key fact that swings it to guilty is the involvement of Tokeer. I don't know the full details but it seems Munir went and got Tokeer before pursuing and cornering Salem. If Munir had just chased him out the house, caught him and given him a good kicking I could undertand a not guilty verdict but this smacked of revenge.

All in all I think justice has been served. The original sentences were perhaps a little heavy but they were always going to be reduced on appeal anyway.


----------



## jlawrence (1 Mar 2010)

big soft moose":1n0m4g7x said:


> Actually I have been in a similar situation and do know what I did , and what i would do differently if (god forbid) it ever happened again
> 
> when I was 19 my then girlfreind (and very near to being fiancee) was killed in a terrorist incident - what did i do about this , well apart from getting heavily into booze and substances and having a near breakdown, I actually did nothing ( Tho i did try to join the army as a squaddie (having been previously washed from POC before the incident occured) , they -quite propperly as i see now- wouldnt take me ) - but the guilt of doing nothing and not acting "as a man should" very nearly destroyed my life and it took me nearly ten years to get my head together and my life back on rack
> 
> therefore if anything similar happened to swimbo, and it is incredibly hard for me to even entertain the idea fior long enough to write this, i am quite certain that i would take retributive steps and i would do my utmost not to get caught in the act



Sorry to hear that BSM.
However, you were probably right not to even attempt to go after 'terrorists'. In the unlikely scenario that you could even find who it was and track them down, you would likely not have the skills to do anything about it.
Jumped up scroats on the street and terrorists aren't quite the same.

You shouldn't feel guilty about not taking on terrorists - some of them were (and likely still are) very very highly trained professionals.


----------



## TrimTheKing (1 Mar 2010)

jlawrence":123kxne8 said:


> Jake, you are right in that we don't live in the 'wild west' - whether there was a wild west is another discussion.
> 
> However:
> 
> ...


I don't want to be picky, but re-read the sentence. I think you have misread it. What it actually says is

The sentencing guidelines for this offence, the maximum sentence for which is life imprisonment,

 indicate that usually when such serious injuries result from such an offence, a very long sentence of imprisonment of seven years or more...

I'm just being pedantic but it does look like you've picked the words that back up your argument.

The judge also said this



> It is somewhat ironic that by reason of the head injuries inflicted upon him he was unfit to plead and could not be sentenced to serve the very long period of imprisonment which would otherwise have been imposed upon him.


Which says to me that this judge would have given the guy what he deserved.

I don't disagree with many of your sentiments but at the end of the day 4 blokes caught up with one who had commited a terrible crime against his family and admittedly deserved a thorough kicking, but nearly beat the bloke to death. If that is allowed to happen it will only be a matter of time before it happens to an innocent person (maybe even someone you know) and the lawyers manage to get the killers off by using this defence.


----------



## Jake (1 Mar 2010)

TrimTheKing":3d97arpe said:


> My only comment would be that if only more Judges were as sensible and considered as this one then we wouldn't be having this discussion because we would all have confidence in the justice system



I suspect most are. How often do you actually read their judgments (or in this case, sentencing remarks)? 

Reading this changed your mind from what had presumably been formed by press and media coverage. It's very often the case that the media either misunderstand or more likely purposefully distort things to fit their agenda. Working everyone up into a lather about the country going to the dogs earns money (and influences political perceptions).


----------



## wobblycogs (2 Mar 2010)

A few years ago I got a very clear insight into the way the media twists the facts of a case. A couple of guys that I worked with played sunday league football with a lad that was involved in a fatal stabbing. It made national headlines for a few days and the lad was portrayed as being evil incarnate and typical of todays youth wandeirng around with knives just looking for trouble.

My collegues though said that he was a fairly quiet lad who they wouldn't have thought would hurt anyone. As the case unfolded it began to become apparant that it was a lot more complex than the media had reported. For a start the guy had only got involved because a group of other lads were pushing his girlfriend about. A murder change became manslaughter with the lad claiming self defence. By the time the police had finished investigating it was fairly clear that the lad hadn't even stabbed the guy although he was the one who had broght and first brandished the knife.

The problem is that the media never reported that their initial articles were massively over blown and as good as fiction. I remember hearing a phone in on a local radio station as I was driving to work on morning. Every caller wanted this lad strung up immediatly but the courts found him not guilty on all counts.

It reenforced for me my belief that the police and courts generally do a good and thorough job and that what gets reported in the papers is little more than sensationalist nonsense. Sure we might have drifted a bit off track lately but you don't correct that with a massive shift in the opposite direction.


----------



## jlawrence (2 Mar 2010)

mark, I didn't deliberately pick sentences to backup my arguement. I simply read it and thought that ain't right.

thanks for pointing out where i was wrong.

weird how someone can completely misread/misunderstand what a sentence says whilst being 100% certain it said exactly what they thought it did.


----------



## RogerS (2 Mar 2010)

jlawrence":1fkf6vgf said:


> ....
> 
> weird how someone can completely misread/misunderstand what a sentence says whilst being 100% certain it said exactly what they thought it did.



Psychologists have a term for it - cognitive dissonance. I also suffer from it from time to time but thankfully have given up reading the Telegraph and so it doesn't happen so much these days.

Jakes' steadying influence plays its' part, as well.


----------



## TrimTheKing (2 Mar 2010)

jlawrence":32kz2mf8 said:


> mark, I didn't deliberately pick sentences to backup my arguement. I simply read it and thought that ain't right.


I think we have crossed wires here, I didn't say you 'deliberately' picked out words, I meant that genuinely you may have misread it.

The way I read it, with the punctuation, was that life was a maximum but a sentence of a minimum of 7 years, see below, I have taken out the bit between punctuation marks which should be read as a separate meaning:



> The sentencing guidelines for this offence indicate that usually when such serious injuries result from such an offence, a very long sentence of imprisonment of seven years or more should be imposed after a trial





jlawrence":32kz2mf8 said:


> thanks for pointing out where i was wrong.


Again, I'm not sure whether this is sarcasm but I wasn't picking for the sake of it, I obviously just didn't articulate it very well.



jlawrence":32kz2mf8 said:


> weird how someone can completely misread/misunderstand what a sentence says whilst being 100% certain it said exactly what they thought it did.


Not sure whether this is a dig or not but I'm not going to dive any further in. I have explained what I meant and that it wasn't meant as a dig, just a comment. 

Cheers

Mark


----------



## TrimTheKing (2 Mar 2010)

Jake":18isr809 said:


> TrimTheKing":18isr809 said:
> 
> 
> > My only comment would be that if only more Judges were as sensible and considered as this one then we wouldn't be having this discussion because we would all have confidence in the justice system
> ...



Not very often admittedly. I think the problem is that the only ones I do get to see are the ones the papers choose to print, and these are invariably the ones that you mention below, the stupid ones. 



Jake":18isr809 said:


> Reading this changed your mind from what had presumably been formed by press and media coverage. It's very often the case that the media either misunderstand or more likely purposefully distort things to fit their agenda. Working everyone up into a lather about the country going to the dogs earns money (and influences political perceptions).


Egzackerly, and that's why I rarely believe what's written. This case appeared to be very well advertised and all that came out made out that he was wholly wronged and the world was falling apart. the judgement and comments you posted weren't mentioned and obviously changed my understanding and thus opinion on the matter.


----------



## jlawrence (2 Mar 2010)

Mark,
I didn't read your reply as a dig at all.

I had completely and utterly misread/misunderstood what I've read - which is why I said it's amazing that someone (ie me) can misread something completely whilst genuinely believing it 100% said something completely different.

I Wasn't being sarcastic - if you hadn't pointed out that I was reading it wrong then I would still have believed it said something that it didn't.


----------



## TrimTheKing (2 Mar 2010)

jlawrence":300cvwt6 said:


> Mark,
> I didn't read your reply as a dig at all.
> 
> I had completely and utterly misread/misunderstood what I've read - which is why I said it's amazing that someone (ie me) can misread something completely whilst genuinely believing it 100% said something completely different.
> ...


 Crossed lines. No worries, it's so hard to tell sometimes whether replies are sarcasm or serious.

I'll stop being so sensitive


----------



## devonwoody (2 Mar 2010)

Coming back in again, lock the drug dealers up until they die, means they dont deal again, whats wrong with that? (whose ever children they are)

Our children never got involved with drugs, and I think the reason was I would never have tolerated it with them.

Spare the rod and spoil the child I think is still relevant and thats what is missing these days, and our family is living proof if drugs are anything to go by.


----------



## Dibs-h (2 Mar 2010)

Jake - Waled Salem's case was heard prior to the Hussain's - same building, same day - and plenty of folk saw Waled come and go and chat - leading to the obvious "brain injury - yeah right!"

As for the seriousness for it to be accepted - apologies if I chuckle here. CPS psychiatrists\ psychologists - the usual ones on their panel - wouldn't know their @rse from their elbow. How many nutters have been released into the community or on parole - only to go on a killing spree? Brain Damage - i.e. non-physical and non-specific is damn easy to fake - especially if one can be consistent. 

I've followed this case closely from the onset and was familiar with the sentencing remarks - many commentators felt that Messrs Hussain should have been found guilty but the sentences suspended.



> However, if persons were permitted to take the law into their own hands and inflict their own instant and violent punishment on an apprehended offender rather than letting justice run its course, then the rule of law which are the hallmarks of a civilised society, would collapse. The courts must make it clear that such conduct is criminal and unacceptable.



That really is laughable - the rule of law? Unless someone actually dies, the consequences aren't particularly heavy are they? Or you actually rob a bank - in which you are likely to do more time. The law over time is just becoming rather esoteric - detached from reality and almost self-perpetuating in terms of bleeding the public purse and not much of a public servant\tool.

As a father and husband, I can entirely understand the red mist, rage and what occurred - had Mr Salem been found dead in Mr Hussain's house, the matter would have been put to bed quickly. As someone said in their post about the US i.e. get them back in the house 1st and then shoot them.

Not having a dig at you Jake - I just find it rather surreal, yes 2 wrongs don't make a right, but a system that allows a hardened criminal to have 50 previous? That's not a system - that's a water take and a money generating machine.


----------



## Jake (2 Mar 2010)

We'll have to agree to disagree, then Dibs. I don't want to live in a country which tolerates lynch mobs, and I'm glad I don't. Tough cases can make bad law, but here I think the bad law would have been to endorse the group beating, even if the temptation is always there to say that in the circumstances it should have been a free for all.

Out of interest, would you have drawn the line anywhere? What if they had tied him up and tortured him horribly to death over the course of a few days?


----------



## Dibs-h (2 Mar 2010)

Jake":36sp4pjc said:


> We'll have to agree to disagree, then Dibs. I don't want to live in a country which tolerates lynch mobs, and I'm glad I don't. Tough cases can make bad law, but here I think the bad law would have been to endorse the group beating, even if the temptation is always there to say that in the circumstances it should have been a free for all.
> 
> Out of interest, would you have drawn the line anywhere? What if they had tied him up and tortured him horribly to death over the course of a few days?



Group beatings\Lynch mobs should not be tolerated - on that I don't disagree. Having Messrs Hussain found not guilty would not have been acceptable from a case law perspective. They *had *to be found guilty.

What I was unhappy with was that Judges do have latitude and given the circumstances and extreme provocation (not high degree) the sentence could have been more lenient - if not suspended. What was happening was a home owner was being made an example of - when's the last time a burglar was made an example of - or a mugger?


----------



## Jake (2 Mar 2010)

The answer to that is all the time. Here, they got way less than the minimum recommended sentence even at first instance - that isn't them being made an extraordinary example of - that would imply them being the maximum term, i.e. life.


----------



## Bluekingfisher (2 Mar 2010)

Jake":2mtjk614 said:


> We'll have to agree to disagree, then Dibs. I don't want to live in a country which tolerates lynch mobs, and I'm glad I don't. Tough cases can make bad law, but here I think the bad law would have been to endorse the group beating, even if the temptation is always there to say that in the circumstances it should have been a free for all.
> 
> Out of interest, would you have drawn the line anywhere? What if they had tied him up and tortured him horribly to death over the course of a few days?



I wouldn't want to live in a country either where lynch mobs have free reign, equally so I don't want to live in a country where people are fearful of protecting their property and family lest they end up in the clink.

The bottom line is if you can justify your actions at the time of the incident. i.e. I was asleep in bed. awoken by what I believed to be intruders in my house. I was scared out of my wits for the safety of my family and myself. They had had the advantage because their actions were premeditated and I was aroused from slumber. I was naked and vulnerable. Kind of paints a picture in any reasonable jurys' mind your own state of mind during the episode. So if you can justify the ends you went to defend yourself you are covered. Chasing him down the street (as much as we would all want to) and clubbing him to death with his own, recently torn off arm would be difficult to justify because he is no longer a threat. In fact you have now become the threat to him, he is now fearful of a good kicking, that's how a smart pineappled brief would put it across. If he on the other hand was in the kitchen and you engaged in a struggle and you feared for your life and stabbed him with the potato peeler which was lying on the draining board any one would think that reasonable. 

Unfortunately the sentencing lets them (burglars) believe that such a crime is trivial, so they continue in the cycle.

I have been in the same court on the same day dealing with two different cases. One, a serial burglar, on conviction, having pleaded not guilty, was sentenced to reside at a bail hostel and comply with certain bail conditions...whoop-e-doo!

The afternoon case was a wealthy businessman in a large expensive BMW motor car pleading not guilty to driving through a red traffic light. On conviction he received a £500 fine and 6 penalty points on his licence. 

What does that tell us? if you can bare the stigma, become a burglar!!!!


----------



## Dibs-h (2 Mar 2010)

Jake":1i9f9yn7 said:


> The answer to that is all the time. Here, they got way less than the minimum recommended sentence even at first instance - that isn't them being made an extraordinary example of - that would imply them being the maximum term, i.e. life.



I suppose that's where we actually disagree.


----------



## RogerS (2 Mar 2010)

Bluekingfisher":1mbda1g1 said:


> ........
> I have been in the same court on the same day dealing with two different cases. One, a serial burglar, on conviction, having pleaded not guilty, was sentenced to reside at a bail hostel and comply with certain bail conditions...whoop-e-doo!
> 
> The afternoon case was a wealthy businessman in a large expensive BMW motor car pleading not guilty to driving through a red traffic light. On conviction he received a £500 fine and 6 penalty points on his licence.
> ...



And that is exactly why any sane person can only come to the conclusion that our sentencing/judicial system is seriously flawed. Personally I'd take those on the Sentencing Guidelines Panel and stick them on a sink estate for a year. Then let them think a bit harder about more appropriate sentencing instead of sitting on their fat backsides, pontificating over a latte and reading the Guardian, tut-tutting with their smug holier-than-thou attitude.


----------



## Jake (2 Mar 2010)

What were the bail conditions, and what was the offence?

£500 fine for an offence which is reckless, stupid and potentially life endangering doesn't seem much of a sentence for a rich businessman.

I know I'd rather pay £500 than be confined to a bail hostel for ?how long? under ?what conditions?


----------



## Bluekingfisher (4 Mar 2010)

Jake,

This was about 20 years ago, so forgive me if my memory of the exact details are vague. It stuck in my mind because the court was quite prepared to heap a heavy punishment on a man purely because he had the funds to pay for it, albeit a potential serious matter. However if he had have gone through the light and killed someone then he would have been charged with death by reckless driving, perhaps an over zealous cop may have burdened with the additional offence of contravening a red ATS Lol not that it would have made much of a difference to a sentence.

The burglars punishment as I remember was to reside at a bail hostel and report to a police station once a day for a period of time. No doubt to let him reflect on his actions of breaking into someones home. I have no recollection of him after that date because I moved divisions shortly after. Suffice to say he was a persistent offender and I would put my house on the fact that that wouldn't have been the last time he was up in front of a court


----------



## Bluekingfisher (4 Mar 2010)

I should have said that 'reside' is purely that, there are few restrictions except that they have to be back indoors at night, usually by 10pm. Other than that they can come and go as they please.

Oh! by the way, the Labour government are experimenting with bringing bail hostels into the community. This could mean that any vacant buildings/house could be bought up to house these poor unfortunates while awaiting a court hearing. The bad news is that there is no requirement to inform that community that the building will be used or has been bought for the purpose. I wonder why the government made that rule up? you don't suppose they feel there might be a few objections do you?


----------



## devonwoody (4 Mar 2010)

I wouldnt class them as poor unfortunates, I have another expression for them.


----------



## Bluekingfisher (4 Mar 2010)

devonwoody":5w8difq1 said:


> I wouldnt class them as poor unfortunates, I have another expression for them.



You and me both, but I am a man who has now gone through enough PC awareness training to understand the needs and values of others - hallelujah brothers, I have seen the future!!!!!


I should have jumped on that PC bandwagon when it came around, I could have made a fortune bleating on about the obvious


----------



## Dibs-h (4 Mar 2010)

Well the Nail gun compressor has been replaced care of the Bay.


----------



## devonwoody (4 Mar 2010)

Dibs-h":kgddnrd4 said:


> Well the Nail gun compressor has been replaced care of the Bay.



So you got it back then? :wink:


----------



## Dibs-h (4 Mar 2010)

devonwoody":x6eb6ex8 said:


> Dibs-h":x6eb6ex8 said:
> 
> 
> > Well the Nail gun compressor has been replaced care of the Bay.
> ...



I wish - that would have been an interesting collection. Wouldn't have gone alone!

Nah something similar and probably better - boxed, so hopefully not out of someone's shed\house!


----------

