Metal theft. The biters bit
 

In a nutshell, prison is not a deterrent.

If it was, why is the prison population the highest it has ever been?

Have you seen the inside of a prison? Not what they show on TV and what the
'tree huggers' and the 'do gooders' choose to show, but life inside?

Come back when you know what you are talking about. I get quite used to
being attacked on urg. They have all cleared off in shame with their tails
between their legs.

Kindest regards

Mike

--

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

I'm an Angel, honest ! The horns are there just to keep the halo straight.

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





"Clive George" wrote in message
o.uk...
On 25/01/2012 19:05, 'Mike' wrote:
Come back when you know what you are talking about.

You claim to know what you're talking about : Why not share? Or is your
knowledge limited to "harder sentences will deter them, common sense
innit"?

Metal theft. The biters bit
 

"Cynic" wrote in message
news:4f20328b.961227750@localhost...
On Wed, 25 Jan 2012 15:03:29 -0000, "dennis@home"
wrote:

I could make prison work.

Prison does work, prisoners don't offend against the public while they
are
locked up.
All you need to do is keep the re-offenders in there.

Ah. Someone who believes that every crime should carry a life
sentence.

Who? You?
I didn't say that.

How else am I supposed to interpret your view that re-offenders
"should be kept in there [prison]"?

Well it doesn't include first offences does it.


Try using your brain and try to figure out the consequences
of such a policy.

Try reading what I said.

I did. It is apparently yourself who is unable to see the obvious
consequence of your statement.

The only obvious thing is that multiple offenders should end up in prison
where they can't reoffend against the public.


1) About 20% of the UK working population has a criminal record.
Having a life sentence for all crimes would therefore result in 1
person in 5 being in prison. That's a heck of a lot of prisons, and a
heck of a lot of non-productive people for everyone else to support.

How many of those are re-offenders?
Shirly not all of them.

Enough to make the result a very high proportion of the population.

2) Most people in prison can be trusted not to try to escape, because
the consequence of escaping is far worse than the consequence of
sitting out their sentence. If everyone was inside for life, there is
essentially nothing to lose, and riots and escape attempts would be
extremely frequent, requiring much higher (= more expensive) security
at all prisons.

Irrelevant.

Of course it is not irrelevant. It is *you* who will have to pay for
it!

3) Most people when caught committing a crime will submit to the
arrest and other processes without much resistance - because again the
likely consequence of resisting arrest is worse than the consequences
of submitting. If mass-murder carries the same sentence as
shoplifting, desperate criminals will put *everyone* at increased
risk.

So we need worse sentences for bad offences.
We could bring back the screw and let them generate power for their food.
The worse the offence the more they have to generate.
That should get the backing of the green party. 8-)

Yes, I'm sure you would be far more comfortable living in the
middle-ages. Or perhaps even less civilised - as a caveman?

Then what would we do with the offenders, kill them?

Metal theft. The biters bit
 

"'Mike'" wrote in message
...
AAMOI, I have been in Albany and Parkhurst Prisons and spent two years in
Camp Hill

Was that for one sentence or multiple?

Metal theft. The biters bit
 

"Cynic" wrote in message
news:4f203583.961988000@localhost...
On Wed, 25 Jan 2012 15:22:14 +0000, =?ISO-8859-1?Q?=AEi=A9ardo?=
wrote:

So would you express exactly the same attitude if the photograph
showed two incinerated children who died because they trespassed on a
railway line?


Straw man strikes again. Grow up for heaven's sake.

If you cannot see the connection, it's you who needs to grow up.

The connection is that the company has to take reasonable precautions to
protect the public from danger.
If children get in and get hurt someone is at fault.
If adults ignore the warnings, break the safety systems, etc. and then get
hurt its their own fault.

Metal theft. The biters bit
 

Don't give up the day job to become a comedian. You will never make it

--

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

I'm an Angel, honest ! The horns are there just to keep the halo straight.

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





"dennis@home" wrote in message
eb.com...


"'Mike'" wrote in message
...
AAMOI, I have been in Albany and Parkhurst Prisons and spent two years in
Camp Hill

Was that for one sentence or multiple?

Metal theft. The biters bit
 

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article om,
dennis@home wrote:
It costs more than simply giving them a reasonable amount of money to
live on outside. Which makes it poor value for those paying the bills
- ie the taxpayer.

well if they are going to reoffend what else do you suggest?

Far more resources put into rehabilitation. Which would include support
after release.

And when that fails?

Metal theft. The biters bit
 

"harry" wrote in message
...
On Jan 25, 11:36 am, "dennis@home"
wrote:
"harry" wrote in message

...

Do you feel the same way about a criminal who drives his car at 45 MPH
in a 40 MPH limit? It could result in death. Even parking in a
no-parking area could result in death. Do you therefore similarly
wish death on drivers who break the speed limit, and people with
parking infringements?

--
Cynic

If they kill someone then yes.

Why should someone that is speeding and has a child run out and get
killed
be treated differently to a speeder who doesn't have a child run out? The
crime is the same only the outcome is different. The difference is not
under
the control of the driver and is an easily foreseen circumstance. They
are
equally guilty.

Consequences.
You can close your eyes and walk across a highway. Just because you
get away with it the first time doesn't mean you will again.

The difference is under the control of the driver. The slower he is
going, the better chance of survival.

The circumstances are exactly the same, its only by chance that the one
driver kills someone.
Now why should the two be treated differently?

If the driver were the only one at risk I wouldn't worry.
But you are too selfish to see that he puts everyone at risk.

Its you who is assuming I think the one that kills should be treated less
harshly.

Metal theft. The biters bit
 

On Wed, 25 Jan 2012 19:25:31 -0000, "'Mike'"
wrote:

Don't give up the day job to become a comedian. You will never make it

Mike - please don't top post. When you do, all semblance of sequence
is totally lost.

--
Frank Erskine

Metal theft. The biters bit
 

Frank which newsgroup are you the netnanny?

--

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

I'm an Angel, honest ! The horns are there just to keep the halo straight.

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





"Frank Erskine" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 25 Jan 2012 19:25:31 -0000, "'Mike'"
wrote:

Don't give up the day job to become a comedian. You will never make it

Mike - please don't top post. When you do, all semblance of sequence
is totally lost.

--
Frank Erskine

Metal theft. The biters bit
 

In article om,
dennis@home wrote:


"Cynic" wrote in message
news:4f203583.961988000@localhost...
On Wed, 25 Jan 2012 15:22:14 +0000, =?ISO-8859-1?Q?=AEi=A9ardo?=
wrote:

So would you express exactly the same attitude if the photograph
showed two incinerated children who died because they trespassed on a
railway line?


Straw man strikes again. Grow up for heaven's sake.

If you cannot see the connection, it's you who needs to grow up.

The connection is that the company has to take reasonable precautions to
protect the public from danger.
If children get in and get hurt someone is at fault.

If adults ignore the warnings, break the safety systems, etc. and then
get hurt its their own fault.

some 'children' are quite capable of breaking and entering. Their parents
fault?

--
From KT24

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.16

Metal theft. The biters bit
 

On 25/01/2012 19:15, 'Mike' wrote:
In a nutshell, prison is not a deterrent.

But we know neither is the death penalty.

If it was, why is the prison population the highest it has ever been?

That's not necessarily a very simple question to answer, and it's
definitely not just because people think prison is too easy. Which
country has the easier prison life - UK or US? Most would agree it's the
UK. Which country has the larger prison population? It's the US. Their
harder prisons aren't a deterrent either.

Have you seen the inside of a prison? Not what they show on TV and what
the 'tree huggers' and the 'do gooders' choose to show, but life inside?

Me, no, which is why I'm asking you to share that experience -
unfortunately you seem reluctant to do so.

Come back when you know what you are talking about. I get quite used to
being attacked on urg. They have all cleared off in shame with their
tails between their legs.

Or got bored with you not reading what is written and just repeating the
same tired points?

Metal theft. The biters bit
 

On Wed, 25 Jan 2012 09:20:34 -0800 (PST), harry
wrote:

If his wife particularly *needed* to leave him for longer than the
battery would last, she would undoubtedly arrange for a more robust
backup system. =A0If such events were rare, that backup could consist of
merely asking a reliable neighbour to check on him every hour or so.
If it was a frequent requirement, then I am sure that a backup system
could have been fitted that would not require manual intervention.

Once the backup is in operation, there is no backup.

Unless the system has more than one backup (which many life support
systems do have). And the backup only has to last until the patient
is transferred to a different system, or until the proimary power
returns - making the exposure time to a second failure very small.

The presence of a single backup means that the risk of both systems
failing is an order of magnitude less than the risk of failure due to
a fault in a part of the system that does not have a backup. Once the
risk becomes small enough, it is perfectly acceptable to discount it.

--
Cynic

Metal theft. The biters bit
 

On Wed, 25 Jan 2012 09:27:38 -0800 (PST), harry
wrote:

I don't see anyone acting as apologists, simply people who see no
reason to gloat over their deaths or believe that it is *good* that
they were killed.

Obviously, you have never been the victim of a crime and lack the
imagination to see how victims feel.

You would be wrong on both counts.

Perhaps you have never been falsely accused of a crime and become the
subject of vigilante attacks?

--
Cynic

Metal theft. The biters bit
 

En el artículo
roups.com, harry escribió:

My prisons would be cheap. They would work and pay for their keep.
They would remain there working until they had paid (in cash)
full compensation for their crimes to their victims.
They would not be a nice place to be in either.

You are Sheriff Joe Arpaio* and I claim my $5.

* google it.

--
(\_/)
(='.'=)
(")_(")

Metal theft. The biters bit
 

En el artículo , Frank
Erskine escribió:

Mike - please don't top post. When you do, all semblance of sequence
is totally lost.

I gave up and plonked him.

--
(\_/)
(='.'=)
(")_(")

Metal theft. The biters bit
 

On 25/01/2012 19:57, Clive George wrote:
On 25/01/2012 19:15, 'Mike' wrote:
In a nutshell, prison is not a deterrent.

But we know neither is the death penalty.

If it was, why is the prison population the highest it has ever been?

That's not necessarily a very simple question to answer, and it's
definitely not just because people think prison is too easy. Which
country has the easier prison life - UK or US? Most would agree it's the
UK. Which country has the larger prison population? It's the US. Their
harder prisons aren't a deterrent either.


Perhaps you've failed to notice that their population is five times
bigger than ours.

Have you seen the inside of a prison? Not what they show on TV and what
the 'tree huggers' and the 'do gooders' choose to show, but life inside?

Me, no, which is why I'm asking you to share that experience -
unfortunately you seem reluctant to do so.

Come back when you know what you are talking about. I get quite used to
being attacked on urg. They have all cleared off in shame with their
tails between their legs.

Or got bored with you not reading what is written and just repeating the
same tired points?


--
Moving things in still pictures

Metal theft. The biters bit
 

On Wed, 25 Jan 2012 19:33:05 -0000, "dennis@home"
wrote:

The difference is under the control of the driver. The slower he is
going, the better chance of survival.

Sure, and staying at home in bed is the safest of all.

For all sensible people however, it is a question of assessing the
risk/reward ratio and taking the risk if the ratio falls below a
certain threshold. Most things we do contains *some* element of risk.
The question is *not* whether something bad happened as a result of a
person taking a risk, but whether the risk taken was reasonable in the
circumstances or not.

If everyone were to drive in a manner that eliminated *all* risk of
causing death, modern society would not be able to survive.

--
Cynic

Metal theft. The biters bit
 

En el artículo 4f200e57.951959890@localhost, Cynic
escribió:

So would you express exactly the same attitude if the photograph
showed two incinerated children who died because they trespassed on a
railway line?

Oh look, another straw man.

1) lines are fenced off
2) there are warning signs
3) it's up to their parents and teachers to educate them in the dangers

this is local to me:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-14013794

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...Dale-Fleckner-
16-killed-electrocuted-Merseyside-railway-line-tried-retrieve-ball.html

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-sto...7/04/teenager-
electrocuted-collecting-football-from-railway-line-115875-23247004/

http://www.wirralnews.co.uk/wirral-news/local-wirral-
news/tm_headline=wirral-teen-dale-fleckner-electrocuted-trying-to-find-
football-inquest-told%26method=full%26objectid=30139375%26siteid=80 491-n
ame_page.html


--
(\_/)
(='.'=)
(")_(")

Metal theft. The biters bit
 

On 25/01/2012 17:45, 'Mike' wrote:

"harry" wrote in message
...
On Jan 25, 2:16 pm, (Cynic) wrote:
On Tue, 24 Jan 2012 17:43:59 +0000, Mike Tomlinson

wrote:
En el artículo ,
Clive George escribió:

Don't talk ****e. Nobody is saying that there should be no punishment,
only that the death penalty is inappropriate.

The death penalty was self-inflicted in this case. Quite a different
matter from wishing to impose the death penalty on someone.

So would you express exactly the same attitude if the photograph
showed two incinerated children who died because they trespassed on a
railway line?

--
Cynic

Parents fault. They had not been subjected proper discipline.

Like dogs. There's no such thing as a bad dog, only a badly trained dog
owner

Mike



Thank you Mike - I didn't like top posting either. Ah, yes, my dogs -
both ex-guide dogs - would agree with your comment.

--
Moving things in still pictures

Metal theft. The biters bit
 

"Cynic" wrote in message
news:4f20624d.973454250@localhost...
On Wed, 25 Jan 2012 19:33:05 -0000, "dennis@home"
wrote:

The difference is under the control of the driver. The slower he is
going, the better chance of survival.

Sure, and staying at home in bed is the safest of all.

For all sensible people however, it is a question of assessing the
risk/reward ratio and taking the risk if the ratio falls below a
certain threshold. Most things we do contains *some* element of risk.
The question is *not* whether something bad happened as a result of a
person taking a risk, but whether the risk taken was reasonable in the
circumstances or not.

If everyone were to drive in a manner that eliminated *all* risk of
causing death, modern society would not be able to survive.

--
Cynic


Always amuses me when the unions say that they 'Will work to rule'. Why
aren't they 'always' working to rule and setting an example? What are
'rules' for? ....... Not that I have much time for unions anyway. They want
to run a business without putting their neck on the block and taking the
risk.

Mike

--

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

I'm an Angel, honest ! The horns are there just to keep the halo straight.

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

Metal theft. The biters bit
 

"®i©ardo" wrote in message
...
On 25/01/2012 17:45, 'Mike' wrote:

"harry" wrote in message
...
On Jan 25, 2:16 pm, (Cynic) wrote:
On Tue, 24 Jan 2012 17:43:59 +0000, Mike Tomlinson

wrote:
En el artículo ,
Clive George escribió:

Don't talk ****e. Nobody is saying that there should be no
punishment,
only that the death penalty is inappropriate.

The death penalty was self-inflicted in this case. Quite a different
matter from wishing to impose the death penalty on someone.

So would you express exactly the same attitude if the photograph
showed two incinerated children who died because they trespassed on a
railway line?

--
Cynic

Parents fault. They had not been subjected proper discipline.

Like dogs. There's no such thing as a bad dog, only a badly trained dog
owner

Mike



Thank you Mike - I didn't like top posting either. Ah, yes, my dogs - both
ex-guide dogs - would agree with your comment.

--
Moving things in still pictures


Done the Puppy Walking Scheme and had ex Guide Dogs. :-)

Mike


--

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

I'm an Angel, honest ! The horns are there just to keep the halo straight.

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

Metal theft. The biters bit
 

On Wed, 25 Jan 2012 17:10:27 +0000, Mike Barnes
wrote:

This thread is about whether it is a "good thing" if criminals are
killed as a result of their criminal action, therefore whether or not
the driver's act was or was not criminal is indeed relevant to this
thread - and that in turn depends on the speed limit in force.

To me the relevant criminal action here - what caused the death - is
dangerous driving. That would be the same even if the speed limit was 70
mph. Exceeding a speed limit is not in itself dangerous. Exceeding a
safe speed *is* in itself dangerous.

"Dangerous" is simply a line in the sand separating what is
subjectively considered to be an acceptable risk from what is
subjectively considered to be an unacceptable risk. That line will be
in different places for different people.

One person who is driving at a speed that you consider to be "safe"
might have or cause a fatal accident, whilst another person driving at
a speed that you consider to be "dangerous" may complete every journey
without incident. Perhaps due purely to chance. Perhaps due to the
faster driver having superior driving skills, or having a car with
superior handling characteristics. After all, you can only assess
what speed is "safe" by reference to your *own* driving ability and
experiences, or what you perceive as being an average driving ability.
A person with problems of cognition or concentration, or slow reflexes
might be dangerous when driving far below a speed that you would
consider perfectly safe. And vice-versa.

--
Cynic

Metal theft. The biters bit
 

On Wed, 25 Jan 2012 18:19:36 +0000, The Grey Man
wrote:

This thread is about whether it is a "good thing" if criminals are
killed as a result of their criminal action

What is your point?

Are you suggesting that if someone who **chooses** to break the law
(and quite probably inflict serious grief and trauma upon the victim)
should happen to die as a result of their **chosen** action, that
might not necessarily be a bad thing?

No, I am suggesting the complete opposite. Do try to keep up.

Amongst the many thousands of new "you're not allowed to say this,
think that" laws NuLabour introduced (Google Emma West), your views
must contravene at least one of them.

Quite possibly, but I have always been opposed to such laws.

--
Cynic

Metal theft. The biters bit
 

On 25/01/2012 20:25, 'Mike' wrote:
"®i©ardo" wrote in message
...
On 25/01/2012 17:45, 'Mike' wrote:

"harry" wrote in message
...

On Jan 25, 2:16 pm, (Cynic) wrote:
On Tue, 24 Jan 2012 17:43:59 +0000, Mike Tomlinson

wrote:
En el artículo ,
Clive George escribió:

Don't talk ****e. Nobody is saying that there should be no
punishment,
only that the death penalty is inappropriate.

The death penalty was self-inflicted in this case. Quite a different
matter from wishing to impose the death penalty on someone.

So would you express exactly the same attitude if the photograph
showed two incinerated children who died because they trespassed on a
railway line?

--
Cynic

Parents fault. They had not been subjected proper discipline.

Like dogs. There's no such thing as a bad dog, only a badly trained dog
owner

Mike



Thank you Mike - I didn't like top posting either. Ah, yes, my dogs -
both ex-guide dogs - would agree with your comment.

--
Moving things in still pictures


Done the Puppy Walking Scheme and had ex Guide Dogs. :-)

Mike



Well, we started with the puppy walking and did about fifteen, and then
moved on to the retired ones.

What a joy, especially taking on the retired ones and seeing them relax
and then enjoy themselves to the full for the rest of their lives.
Perhaps we've been spoilt on the dog front, given the extensive training
that the youngsters required - it rarely turned out a rogue, if ever.

Regards

Ri©ardo

--
Moving things in still pictures

Metal theft. The biters bit
 

On 25/01/2012 20:17, ®i©ardo wrote:
On 25/01/2012 19:57, Clive George wrote:
On 25/01/2012 19:15, 'Mike' wrote:
In a nutshell, prison is not a deterrent.

But we know neither is the death penalty.

If it was, why is the prison population the highest it has ever been?

That's not necessarily a very simple question to answer, and it's
definitely not just because people think prison is too easy. Which
country has the easier prison life - UK or US? Most would agree it's the
UK. Which country has the larger prison population? It's the US. Their
harder prisons aren't a deterrent either.


Perhaps you've failed to notice that their population is five times
bigger than ours.

And how much bigger is their prison population? Yup, it's 22 times
bigger. UK 140-odd per 100,000 people, US 740-odd per 100,000 people.

That's a huge difference.

Metal theft. The biters bit
 

On 25/01/2012 11:36, dennis@home wrote:
Why should someone that is speeding and has a child run out and get
killed be treated differently to a speeder who doesn't have a child run
out? The crime is the same only the outcome is different. The difference
is not under the control of the driver and is an easily foreseen
circumstance. They are equally guilty.

Well, perhaps the speeder who didn't have a child run out picked a road
like the one near me. That still has a speed limit for the school that
closed last September.

Not all speed limits are correct.

Andy

Metal theft. The biters bit
 

On Wed, 25 Jan 2012 09:30:35 -0800 (PST), harry
wrote:

I could make prison work.
Quite amazing the confidence some have in their abilities.
No-one would want to go in my prisons.

But would your treatment of them result in them being more inclined or
less inclined to offend after they were released?

Because I have a strong feeling that the sort of treatment you would
mete out to the inmates would result in making them angry, bitter,
resentful and far more anti-social than when they went in.

They could be what they liked as long as they didn't re-offend.

But your treatment would make it *more* likely that they would
re-offend - and in fact commit worse offences than their original
crime. And having been forced to associate with other criminals, they
would be far more adept at avoiding being caught.

So whilst it might serve to gratify your lust for vengeance to treat
prisoners badly, and will no doubt improve your self-image by
reinforcing the notion that you are "good" and they are "bad", it will
end up increasing crime and making society as a whole all the worse
off.

--
Cynic

Metal theft. The biters bit
 

On Wed, 25 Jan 2012 17:31:03 -0000, "'Mike'"
wrote:

Because I have a strong feeling that the sort of treatment you would
mete out to the inmates would result in making them angry, bitter,
resentful and far more anti-social than when they went in.

Your strong feeling is wrong.

Have you ever 'actually' talked to a prisoner about a 'harder and more
deterrent' sentence?

Yes.

Have you 'actually been inside' a prison?

Yes

--
Cynic

Metal theft. The biters bit
 

On Wed, 25 Jan 2012 19:26:26 -0000, "dennis@home"
wrote:

Far more resources put into rehabilitation. Which would include support
after release.

And when that fails?

Let's try it first, and then cross that bridge. Because it's clear
that our present system doesn't work too well, and nor did the far
harsher system that we used to have.

--
Cynic

Metal theft. The biters bit
 

"®i©ardo" wrote in message
...
On 25/01/2012 20:25, 'Mike' wrote:
"®i©ardo" wrote in message
...
On 25/01/2012 17:45, 'Mike' wrote:

"harry" wrote in message
...

On Jan 25, 2:16 pm, (Cynic) wrote:
On Tue, 24 Jan 2012 17:43:59 +0000, Mike Tomlinson

wrote:
En el artículo ,
Clive George escribió:

Don't talk ****e. Nobody is saying that there should be no
punishment,
only that the death penalty is inappropriate.

The death penalty was self-inflicted in this case. Quite a different
matter from wishing to impose the death penalty on someone.

So would you express exactly the same attitude if the photograph
showed two incinerated children who died because they trespassed on a
railway line?

--
Cynic

Parents fault. They had not been subjected proper discipline.

Like dogs. There's no such thing as a bad dog, only a badly trained dog
owner

Mike



Thank you Mike - I didn't like top posting either. Ah, yes, my dogs -
both ex-guide dogs - would agree with your comment.

--
Moving things in still pictures


Done the Puppy Walking Scheme and had ex Guide Dogs. :-)

Mike



Well, we started with the puppy walking and did about fifteen, and then
moved on to the retired ones.

What a joy, especially taking on the retired ones and seeing them relax
and then enjoy themselves to the full for the rest of their lives. Perhaps
we've been spoilt on the dog front, given the extensive training that the
youngsters required - it rarely turned out a rogue, if ever.

Regards

Ri©ardo

--
Moving things in still pictures


We found Labradors the hardest to train. Much preferred Alsatians. The
trouble with those though is that they are a 'one person' dog. Don't like
small yappy dogs.

We would have another Alsatian tomorrow, the trouble is we are away too
often, and, we have a Saloon car. An Estate is a must with big dogs

Mike



--

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

I'm an Angel, honest ! The horns are there just to keep the halo straight.

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

Metal theft. The biters bit
 

On Wed, 25 Jan 2012 09:19:11 -0800 (PST), harry
wrote:

My prisons would be cheap. They would work and pay for their keep.
They would remain there working until they had paid (in cash)
full compensation for their crimes to their victims.
They would not be a nice place to be in either.

I'd like to see how you would manage to achieve all those things.
There are not sufficient jobs to go around for people leading a normal
life, so how you would create sufficient jobs to put everyone inside a
prison into paid work is difficult to see. If the work you forced
them to do was purely notional work - such as rock-breaking or
similar, it would not make a profit and so it would actually cost you
*more* to provide those make-work jobs than to lock the prisoners in a
cell where they watch TV all day.

--
Cynic

Metal theft. The biters bit
 

On Wed, 25 Jan 2012 10:15:31 -0800 (PST), harry
wrote:

My prisons would be cheap. =A0They would work and pay for their keep.
They would remain there working until they had paid =A0(in cash)
full compensation for their crimes to their victims.
They would not be a nice place to be in either.

Where would you get the money from? We've already got an oversupply of
labour - how would yours be any better? Would you undercut normal
working people to get your work?

They would sort waste for recycling. That sort of thing.

I see. How much would it cost to provide the facilities? How much to
transport the waste to and from those facillities? How much in
additional security to prevent hardened criminals from using access to
such waste to make weapons etc? And just how accurately do you think
the waste will be sorted when it is done by people who cannot be fired
and are being forced to do the work?

There are a few jobs that you *could* undercut normal businesses by
having a literally captive supply of free labour (the one you suggest
is not one of them) - but then you would put an equal number of
non-criminals out of work.

--
cynic

Metal theft. The biters bit
 

"Cynic" wrote in message
news:4f20624d.973454250@localhost...
On Wed, 25 Jan 2012 19:33:05 -0000, "dennis@home"
wrote:

The difference is under the control of the driver. The slower he is
going, the better chance of survival.

Sure, and staying at home in bed is the safest of all.

Just to point out that you have removed the author of what you quoted and
left me in.
Please try harder.

Metal theft. The biters bit
 

On Wed, 25 Jan 2012 19:17:56 -0000, "dennis@home"
wrote:

Yes, I'm sure you would be far more comfortable living in the
middle-ages. Or perhaps even less civilised - as a caveman?

Then what would we do with the offenders, kill them?

Depends on the type of offending. For some offences, my solution
would be to remove the unnecessary laws so that what they are doing is
no longer an offence at all. For most other offences my preference
would be to remove the cause of the offending behaviour in the
long-term and attempt to rehabilitate the person so that they become a
productive member of society rather than a drain.

Only after those things fail should lengthy imprisonment be considered
as a final solution.

--
Cynic

Metal theft. The biters bit
 

On Wed, 25 Jan 2012 19:25:23 -0000, "dennis@home"
wrote:

So would you express exactly the same attitude if the photograph
showed two incinerated children who died because they trespassed on a
railway line?


Straw man strikes again. Grow up for heaven's sake.

If you cannot see the connection, it's you who needs to grow up.

The connection is that the company has to take reasonable precautions to
protect the public from danger.
If children get in and get hurt someone is at fault.
If adults ignore the warnings, break the safety systems, etc. and then get
hurt its their own fault.

And there is a magic transformation that takes place on a person's
18th birthday?

--
Cynic

Metal theft. The biters bit
 

On Wed, 25 Jan 2012 19:48:38 +0000 (GMT), charles
wrote:

The connection is that the company has to take reasonable precautions to
protect the public from danger.
If children get in and get hurt someone is at fault.

If adults ignore the warnings, break the safety systems, etc. and then
get hurt its their own fault.

some 'children' are quite capable of breaking and entering. Their parents
fault?

Could be all sorts of reasons. It is quite common for children who
were raised by very responsible parents to do silly things, or be
pressured by peers into acting against their better judgement.

We can only reduce risks as far as is practical, we cannot eliminate
risks. Sometime bad things happen despite the fact that everyone has
done everything reasonable to attempt to prevent it, and there simply
*isn't* anyone who deserves the blame.

--
Cynic

Metal theft. The biters bit
 

"Cynic" wrote in message
news:4f206867.975016218@localhost...
On Wed, 25 Jan 2012 19:26:26 -0000, "dennis@home"
wrote:

Far more resources put into rehabilitation. Which would include support
after release.

And when that fails?

Let's try it first, and then cross that bridge. Because it's clear
that our present system doesn't work too well, and nor did the far
harsher system that we used to have.

--
Cynic


It was tried in the 1970's and it failed. I know because I was involved. I
was on the Training Scheme. I wrote a course for them which gave them a City
and Guilds Certificate. "I" was the writer of the course and "I" was the
City and Guilds Assessor and it was rolled out over the whole Prison System.

I left the Prison Service and went into Industry. I employed an ex prisoner.
He lasted less than six months before he was back inside again. Even before
I came out, a prisoner who had completed a course, was back inside again
within a few months. I saw him in the nick on his return. "What the hell are
you doing here?" I asked him 'Two and a half years', "Why?", 'I went back
home and doffed the bloke who put me inside last time'

One of the prisoners was in for taking cars. "It would be cheaper for the
Government to buy me a car" he said one day. I politely told him that he
should get a job and pay for his car as I had done. I then put a deterrent
scheme to him. "If you were sentenced to 14 days with the proviso that next
time it would be 28 days and when you got to prison all you were doing was
shifting a pile of sand from one end of a corridor, and when that was done
you would shift it all back again, would you think twice before putting your
hand on a car door handle with the view to pinching it, knowing you will be
shifting sand for 28 days and the next term 56 days etc?" He agreed it would
be a deterrent.

Now watch the do gooders jump on me. 'Civil Liberties' etc etc etc. NO,
repeat NO civil liberties when inside.

Mike

--

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

I'm an Angel, honest ! The horns are there just to keep the halo straight.

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

Metal theft. The biters bit
 

"Andy Champ" wrote in message
...
On 25/01/2012 11:36, dennis@home wrote:
Why should someone that is speeding and has a child run out and get
killed be treated differently to a speeder who doesn't have a child run
out? The crime is the same only the outcome is different. The difference
is not under the control of the driver and is an easily foreseen
circumstance. They are equally guilty.

Well, perhaps the speeder who didn't have a child run out picked a road
like the one near me. That still has a speed limit for the school that
closed last September.

Not all speed limits are correct.

All speed limits are correct.
They are defined as correct.
They are set for many reasons, safety is just one reason.
If you exceed one then you are breaking the law (unless you are an emergency
vehicle which can exceed some speed limits where they are set for reasons
other than safety).

Metal theft. The biters bit
 

"Cynic" wrote in message
news:4f206c2f.975984000@localhost...
On Wed, 25 Jan 2012 19:17:56 -0000, "dennis@home"
wrote:

Yes, I'm sure you would be far more comfortable living in the
middle-ages. Or perhaps even less civilised - as a caveman?

Then what would we do with the offenders, kill them?

Depends on the type of offending. For some offences, my solution
would be to remove the unnecessary laws so that what they are doing is
no longer an offence at all. For most other offences my preference
would be to remove the cause of the offending behaviour in the
long-term and attempt to rehabilitate the person so that they become a
productive member of society rather than a drain.



Only after those things fail should lengthy imprisonment be considered
as a final solution.

So basically you agree with me.

Metal theft. The biters bit
 

"Cynic" wrote in message
news:4f206d77.976312093@localhost...
On Wed, 25 Jan 2012 19:25:23 -0000, "dennis@home"
wrote:

So would you express exactly the same attitude if the photograph
showed two incinerated children who died because they trespassed on a
railway line?


Straw man strikes again. Grow up for heaven's sake.

If you cannot see the connection, it's you who needs to grow up.

The connection is that the company has to take reasonable precautions to
protect the public from danger.
If children get in and get hurt someone is at fault.
If adults ignore the warnings, break the safety systems, etc. and then get
hurt its their own fault.

And there is a magic transformation that takes place on a person's
18th birthday?

I think its about 10/12 actually.