1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Boris Johnson Promises (jail) Sentences Will Truly Fit The Crime

Discussion in 'Speakers Corner' started by Zhed46, Aug 12, 2019.

  1. I agree. I for one think it's absolutely terrible that, if, just picking an example at random, someone who helps someone else with their plan to have a journalist beaten up would (if they are not too posh to be prosecuted) only get 4 or 5 years in prison for conspiracy to commit GBH.


    Anyway, here is the ridiculous pie-in-the-sky dog-whistle story.


    Apparently £2.5bn is going to be spent on 10,000 new prison places (edit: I mistakenly originally said “100,000”). I would love to know how the fantasy numbers they are bandying around in order to gear up for an election that BoJo claims he isn't going to call fit in with much the same announcement in 2016 when 10,000 new places were promised by 2020, which has recently been adjusted down to 3000 new places by 2023.

    I would also love to know how this dovetails with the policing crisis in this country caused by the loss of approx 20,000 officers since 2010 (something like 18% of strength), meaning that hardly anybody gets arrested anymore unless they are either caught red-handed by one of the few remaining boys in blue or they can solve the crime with a CCTV camera (preferably one which fines you automatically for some minor infraction).

    Violent crime is up,

    Arrests are down,

    The CPS don't charge anywhere near as many suspects as they used to (because they don't have the personpower to prosecute the cases),

    The offences that they do charge are often downgraded to lesser offences which, surprise surprise, also carry lesser sentences - again to save money, and preferably, if at all possible, to ensure the case is "summary only" (so it can only be heard in the Mags which massively reduces costs and massively increases conviction rates but usually results in a non-custodial sentence),

    The cases they do prosecute are often woefully prepared meaning that cases are not trial ready and so the trial is either adjourned (with the result that pissed off witnesses often won't turn up for the rematch) or in more than a few cases the trial collapses or the judge intervenes and stops it to prevent a miscarriage of justice,

    That is, if the case can find a court, many of which now lie idle because the government won't invest in the required number of judges and/or won't pay for barristers to sit as part-time judges known as Recorders, which traditionally has been a flexible way of upping judicial capacity without long term commitment.

    All of which has resulted in something like a 50% reduction in prosecutions over the last 8 years and now only around of 8% of reported crimes result in a charge being laid.

    So, where are all these criminals who are in line for a whack with the big Tory lawrunorder stick going to come from because the police can't catch them, but even if they do, the CPS can't prosecute them and the courts can't try them?

    Also, does the government realise that judges don't just hand down so-called "soft" sentences because they're bleeding heart libtards who've been gulled by a sob story. Sentencing for most offences are fairly strictly mandated by the Consolidated Sentencing Guidelines which are drafted by the Sentencing Council, which was in turn set up under a Conservative Government and their Ministry of Justice and whoever was having a go at being the Lord Chancellor that week.....

    Rant over (for now).
    #1 Zhed46, Aug 12, 2019
    Last edited: Aug 13, 2019
    • Like Like x 6
    • Love You Love You x 1
  2. Right, bed time, night night :)
    • Funny Funny x 2
  3. Just on one point, the 20,000 less police.

    It's always been a good labour stick to beat the tories over the head with but the tories have not cut 20,000, the service has lost 20,000.

    Of those I have known who work in plod, particularly the met, many can't wait to get to their 30 years of service so max pension rates and leave. If you ask them why, plain and simple, they say most of the public are arseholes. The public rarely want the police anywhere near them anymore.

    It's all full of senior officers playing politics and not supporting them, knowing who the baddies are but not being allowed to go after them, people enjoying watching a copper getting a kick in then you tubing instead of helping them stop the abuse, arresting a real baddy but then being surrounded by ferral kids and their parents taking no responsibility at all so in many ways.

    The tories haven't cut 20,000, a large part of society has turned their back on the police and the moral is so low, they are leaving as soon as they can, so whilst there is no doubt cuts have effected the service there has been nearly as much damage done by how society see's the police

    As to the boris link, the bloke was so disturbed by it he waited 30 years and for boris to suddenly become the pm front runner to make a point of it?
    #3 noobie, Aug 12, 2019
    Last edited: Aug 12, 2019
    • Like Like x 3
  4. Boris aside for a minute;

    Do we / you think it's a good idea to actually hold prisoners for longer, especially those convicted of a violent or harrowing crime? Personally I think it is, but appreciate others don't.

    Now the costs.

    Apart from the obvious link of longer sentences for violent and/or reoffenders producing better value for money for the tax payer, how else can the government get a handle on costs?

    I'm not a solicitor, but I'm under the impression that they make decent money, in fact some very very good money. Do directly employed government solicitors get paid a lot less (are they cps?)

    So would more of them assist bringing the bill down?
  5. In Britain the re-offending rate after leaving prison is very high, in Norway they spend a lot more on the prisoner whilst they are in prison but the re-offending rate is single figure %. net cost to society is therefore much less
    • Like Like x 1
    • Face Palm Face Palm x 1
    • Useful Useful x 1
  6. May cut police funding by 18%. Police numbers were massively reduced & crime soared. What did you or anyone else expect to happen?


    Wriggle as much as you like but the simple facts are there for everyone to see, together with the results.

    #6 Jez900ie, Aug 13, 2019
    Last edited: Aug 13, 2019
    • Agree Agree x 3
    • Like Like x 1
  7. BJ can pledge spend as much as he wants on Police, well enough to get back to the level it was ten years back...
    However, moral is very low and paperwork tedious.
    Time to take politics out of policing. Starting point.

    Prisons. Where to start? Sub contracted institutions? Not enough staff..

    Ironic that the system is in a mess due to the Tories. And now we have a smiling snake selling snake oil.
    • Agree Agree x 3
    • Like Like x 2
  8. No wriggling at all jez I mentioned the cuts but in your labour eyes the tories said cut 20,000 plod, your own figures and articles show that wasn't the case, there was a financial cut.

    What it must be to be in your world jez to look into the millions of colours in the kaleidoscope of life and only see two colours, hatred for anything blue and an lsd obsession with anything red must mean good.

    The cuts at first saw it effect things like overtime, small investment in cost cutting in things like uniform, that particular station not being asked to be involved in projects which would have cost, antiquated police stations deliberately being left to be run down then sold, traffic units amalgamated in many ways within other units, reduction of cpso's and then not the reduction of police but more simply not filling the vacancy when a copper leaves or retires. this is different than the tories cut coppers.

    Moral is the biggest problem within plod of which numbers is just one part, pay is another. The met, one of the better paid has a starting salary in London of £20,370 with a London weighting allowance of £6,783 so £27,153 per annum. This involves weekends, quick change overs and not forgetting the risk you might not be alive at the end of your shift. Fucked if I would work in that job and for that money. As long as you see nothing other than blue bad, red good then you are always going to struggle

    I agree with this, rapists, severe sex offenders and murderers absolutely should stay in for their sentence.

    The other side is a societal divide. Some say we should not be locking up the smaller crimes, theft, burglary, shoplifting and at some point society will have to decide is that a "soft" crime. Lets be honest, when it comes to crime, most of us are more likely to experience a bike theft, motorcycle theft, burglary, than say a murder so soft crime with time off for good behaviour whilst your in a prison could set an impression of the crimes that effect the people the most, are still being seen as a good behaviour whilst locked up as soft sentencing.

    The difference is, Norway is more interested in community, the U.K. is more interested in the rights of the individual. Re-offending is high amongst a small group needs to be looked at because often that small group see prison as there second home. At the homeless shelter I sometimes help with, we tend to see the same faces dissapear over the winter and back into prisons. So when they bandy around we have a high re-offending rate, they need to be more specific to show the honesty of the situation.
    • Like Like x 1
  9. Apart from the fact that I did not mention the words "cut" or "the Labour Party", good effort. 7/10 ;)

    Joking aside - the phenomenon you reference (police officers leaving because they no longer enjoy The Job) is not a new one by any means. My mate who was a DS in the Met and retired in 2006 was saying pretty much the same thing as were many of his colleagues who I used to know to a greater or lesser extent through him. Another few guys I know who retired in the 90s say exactly the same thing about why they left.

    I very much get the impression that sort of "The Job ain't what it used to be" griping is something of a "police culture" thing which has probably been going on for decades, perhaps longer. Some of it is also older officers bemoaning the fact that these days you can't just arrest people on suspicion of being black, or give someone a clip round the ear to teach them a lesson, or beat a confession out of a suspect etc. Those are rather flippant stereotypes deployed for argumentative effect, but there's more than a grain of truth to them.

    If the police are no longer respected by the public, then in addition to blaming the public (who by and large are indeed much less deferential to authority and much more disorderly than they used to be), the Police also should look to themselves as to why that might be.

    Just off the top of my head....

    - The "Nick/Credible and True" scandal (which only shone a light on the dodgy way police routinely operate in the murky area of sexual offences due to the high profile nature of the allegations/suspects).

    - Hillsborough (it took a long time but eventually something approaching the truth and the subsequent cover up of it came out).

    - The undercover lover scandal, which also included allegations that the police were spending millions to snoop on the activities of perfectly lawful organisations.

    - Jean Charles De Menezes (the Inquest jury "did not accept" the evidence of the officers who claimed the police had shouted "armed police!" before firing - in other words, they thought the officers lied)

    - The death of Ian Tomlinson and apparent cover up.

    - The Stephen Lawrence case, cover up and subsequent Inquiry.

    - The routine "verballing" of suspects and fabrication of evidence. Such practices were so widespread that the Tories passed the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 to curb them, and you know things must have been getting out of hand when even the Conservatives felt the Police needed to be reined in.

    - The riots in the early 80s, many of which were provoked by heavy handed and racist policing of certain neighbourhoods in major cities.

    And many, many other scandals which appear on a depressingly regular basis, such as this video from earlier this year of one officer apparently deliberately smashing up a suspect’s furniture while conducting a search while another one beats the cowering man around the head, as his colleagues do nothing to intervene:https://m.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entr...page_tiwdkz83gze&utm_campaign=mw_entry_recirc

    Those, however, are merely the stories which make it into the public domain, but I will bet you dollars to doughnuts that almost everyone has had their own negative interactions with the Police, whether that was being on the wrong end of aggression or rudeness by a constable, or the Police claiming "it's a civil matter, sir" when they try to report what is clearly a crime, or simply being sick to death of seeing speed cameras everywhere, the effect is corrosive.

    But anyway, leaving aside the reasons why officers are (apparently) leaving in droves, it's not as if the police's HR people don't know how many officers are due to hand in their papers in any given year and so, if the money was available to promote existing officers and recruit new officers to replace them, I have no doubt they would do so. But that is the problem - whilst the Home Secretary did not come along in 2009 and tell the Police "you need to cut 20,000 officers", they simply slashed the budget and forced the Police to do so themselves by denying them the funds to replace officers lost by natural wastage. The effect is the same and it is disingenuous to suggest otherwise.

    Btw, the "Boris bloke" did not wait 30 years to come forward. The story was out and about many years ago, but was obviously revived by the press when BJ was in the running for PM.
    #9 Zhed46, Aug 13, 2019
    Last edited: Aug 13, 2019
    • Like Like x 3
    • Agree Agree x 3
  10. Anyone who thought cutting 18% from the police budget will not affect their abilty to maintain what most people of all political persuasion feel acceptable have surely realised they were mistaken?

    You make wild assumptions continuously. I wrote:

    I know what the article says, I attached it remember?

    Are you now an expert on Norway too?
    • Like Like x 1
    • Funny Funny x 1
  11. Apart from the fact I was clearly replying to jez and not you, i'll give you 7 too because you used a lot of words too :D
  12. Yes, me and fin have been Norwaying for years about the different cultures, Thankfully they don't have worzel gummidge trying to take them back to the 70's
  13. No you were not "clearly replying to Jez”. Jez had not even posted in the thread when you posted your message.

    I know you can be kind of hard of thinking sometimes and you do love a bit of gaslighting, but all you needed to do was scroll up the page to see that after my original post, Exige said "night night" and then today, you posted your message of which the second paragraph started "It's always been a good labour stick......but the tories have not cut 20,000" :rolleyes:
    #13 Zhed46, Aug 13, 2019
    Last edited: Aug 13, 2019
    • Like Like x 1
  14. Why do you feel when when a post is posted than none will be a general reply? I'm pretty sure I didn't copy and paste any part of your post to then directly reply to you as would be the norm?
  15. Please stop with these understatements.
    • Funny Funny x 4
  16. To gaslight would assume the other person had some mental stability, to date having read most of Jez's left leaning post's, it would be impossible for me to tamper with something that is not there.
  17. All good questions.

    1. I am not a criminologist so I can't really comment from an academic perspective but there's certainly an argument to be made that if an armed robber is inside for 5 years rather than 3, then that's 2 additional years where he isn't terrorising the public. However, there's also an argument to be made that long prison sentences also institutionalise criminals (ie: they see themselves as belonging to an outlaw caste rather than being part of society), and that they increase the likelihood of post-release relationship/family breakdown and homelessness (both of which tend to be destabilising factors which can trigger recidivist behaviour).

    The courts in the US tend to impose much longer sentences than other western countries and yet their crime rate is off the scale. Whether there is a casual link between the two phenomena is debatable as it may be the case that US culture is just so inherently and fundamentally lawless compared to other similar countries that crime might be even higher if sentences were shorter.

    2. I don't know if longer sentences do represent good value for money as that all depends on what you deem to be valuable. If you are a blue rinse Tory from the Shires you may feel that your tax pounds are being well spent when you read that Boris is going to build an additional 10,000 prison spaces. However, if you live on a council estate in Lewisham, you may feel that you'd be safer if burglars stealing to feed their heroin addiction were given suspended sentences with drug rehab requirements instead of jail time.

    3. There are solicitors and there are solicitors - at one end of the scale, a newly qualified sol at a magic circle City/corporate law firm will start on circa £100k, but a NQ sol at a high street criminal defence firm will start on about £25k. I know a few solicitors who work for the CPS - they are massively overworked and the pay is not that great (circa £40k).

    Apparently £85m has been promised to the CPS but that is a mere drop in the ocean compared to the something like £300m worth of cuts it has had to absorb in recent years. What the announcement does not make clear is whether that is going to be allocated to increasing fees for barristers accepting prosecution briefs who very nearly went on strike a few months back over the woeful remuneration. Examples - being required to attend court which may keep them there all day for the princely sum of £46.50 appearance fee, or prepping a long trial which is then adjourned for which wasted effort and a 4 week gap in their diary they will be paid next to nothing, or being required to read thousands of pages of material for which they won't be paid but if they don't do so the case might collapse or end in a miscarriage of justice.

    3. Money would solve some of these problems, but it won't solve the long term "de-skilling" effects of decades of under-investment. So whilst the MOJ might start throwing money at the problem in an attempt to curry favour with the electorate, it won't replace all the experienced lawyers who were made redundant or those who were made/encouraged to take early retirement and were not replaced or were replaced by less experienced and therefore cheaper lawyers, or those who simply would never work for the CPS again because it almost drove them to a nervous breakdown.
    #17 Zhed46, Aug 13, 2019
    Last edited: Aug 13, 2019
    • Useful Useful x 3
    • Like Like x 2
    • Agree Agree x 1
  18. Offend some dick on twitter, 2 car loads arrive, just my impression of policing nowadays
    • Agree Agree x 1
  19. Noob you are the only person I know of on this board who either doesn't understand written English, or deliberately twists other people comments around, then denies it when its clearly written for all to see!

    I have not said the Tories cut 20,000 officers. I have said the Tories cut the budget by 18%.

    Now we are all expecting you to either:

    A) Ignore the facts of my comment
    B) Write a comment avoiding any reply to the facts

    I doubt anyone is expecting you to give a straight answer and consequently some, possibly many are laughing!
    • Agree Agree x 2
    • Funny Funny x 1
  20. A bit like Gwent Police saying on FB that it was a crime to make fun of a drug dealers hair style lack.
    Policing eh
    • Like Like x 2