Guest 690- Registered: 10 Oct 2009
- Posts: 4,150
#1
Had this through the letterbox today, and I`m really and utterley, totally confused. `It`s time to fight back against crime` the letter states. What about last year? 5 years ago, 10 years ago, 20 years ago, the 60, 70s and 80s? Why 2010? Why in an election year? This is not a political party bashing thread, as other parties have all used this subject along with other`s over the years. As stated before on here, I have no political favourite`s, so would be interested in views on above, without any finger pointing at particular party`s. Has crime shot up since 1st January this year?
Tell them that I came, and no one answered.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
#2
The point of the leaflet 'headline' is to say that not enough has been done by the present Government on these matters.
Colin, one of the problems that we have had over the last 13 years is one of the 'rights' culture where the criminals have had more rights than those they rob. I know that this is one of the key election planks for the Conservatives, giving householders more confidence in fighting back and defending themselves as one example.
Another Conservative policy is to have locally and directly elected police chiefs so they are more responsive to local needs and the electorate.
Low level anti-social behavior is also something that needs to be tackled and a range of new initiatives are being brought forward there.
You will see a lot more policy stuff on this as we get nearer the election.
Guest 690- Registered: 10 Oct 2009
- Posts: 4,150
#3
Thanks for that Barry, and as I say, whether it`s Conservative, Labour U.K.I.P. or whatever party at the top of the letter, crime always seems to be the top priority to sort first, and here we are back at the start again.
Tell them that I came, and no one answered.
#4
It may be time to fight back against crime, but how do they plan to do it? More GATSO's, more cctv's, or, don't hold your breath, more police on t he beat (that's not in cars by the way)?
Unregistered User
#5
Sid, I challenged the police last week [again] on the plastic police[pcso] and their powers. Can they/will they issue fixed penalty fines for the 6 powers out of 35 that the Chief Constable designates they can apply? Nice people or not that they may be ,but the public want people with powers preventing/protecting them, not another branch of social services applying social[so called] skills . How many in each Police command area have been issued etc?Are they going to support CCTV in the same way Sussex have i.e. taken them over? In fact we will review CCTV this year and have challenged the Police to respond at an early stage.
#6
Amen to that Paul, thanks.
#7
Cool, PW.
Guest 667- Registered: 6 Apr 2008
- Posts: 919
#8
I am not a political party man either so just a simple question. If Labour has done less on crime than the last Conservative Government, How come the Prisons are now overflowing?
I do not think one lot is any better than the other when it comes to cracking down on crime but they all use it as a political football. However once they get in, it goes on the back burner.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
#9
crime in itself is on a downward trend, partly because it only applies to reported crime.
a lot of crimes go unreported because people know they will not be investigated.
anti social behaviour is the bugbear for many people, politicians know this, so will make a play on this close to an election.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
#10
The point is that Conservatives are proposing a lot of big changes to deal with it. Labour has 13 wasted years and their Human Rights act has been a monstrosity, replacing that with an alternative Bill of Rights is designed to provide some much needed common sense.
The reason the prisons are overflowing is because of the HRA they have had to make prison more comfortable and do things like reducing numbers to a cell and to end slopping out. They also did not plan for any increase in the prison population and cancelled a prison building programme (though I believe that has been resurrected since).
The fact is that Labour are soft on criminals and always have been.
#11
You know that isn't accurate, BarryW. And the tories have never reduced crime itself, they have just knee-jerked their way to the Blue heart of their followers.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
#12
that is it what i thought bern, incidentally i am surprised to read that the reds have their own human rights act, i thought it was a european thing.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
#13
On the contrary Bern - Michael Howard did reduce crime in his period as Home Secretary, its a matter of record. It was a result of his tougher stance on law breakers. The Courts did not like him though because of it, typical. The British Criminal Justice system is a joke.
Howard - one of Labour's first acts in 1997 was to bring about their own HRA and that is what gives us a lot of problems. The European act was in place for a hell of a lot of years beforehand and the Conservatives were against enshrining it in British law for good reasons that are now apparent to all.
#14
M Howard changed the ways in which crime was recorded - different!
Guest 670- Registered: 23 Apr 2008
- Posts: 573
#15
Barry, two small points, the first, why would the Courts not like Michael Howard and his, alleged, tough stance on crime and secondly, if you get rid of the CPS who is going to prosecute?
Ross Miller
- Location: London Road, Dover
- Registered: 17 Sep 2008
- Posts: 3,709
#16
Love the picture on the top right of that leaflet - makes it look like Cheesy Dave is being arrested.
"Dream as if you'll live forever. Live as if you'll die today." - James Dean
"Being deeply loved by someone gives you strength,
While loving someone deeply gives you courage" - Laozi
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
#17
Dave1, the local elected police chief would be in charge of the prosecution service as well. Nothing strange in that.
Bern - no he did actually reduce crime, the first Home Sec to do it. The way stats are collected changes all the time incidentally.
Dave1 - The Courts made some rulings against him claiming he was acting in excess of his powers.
Guest 670- Registered: 23 Apr 2008
- Posts: 573
#18
Interesting Barry and who would the elected police chief be using for prosecutions, a local solicitor, doubt it, criminal law unless it is a really big case is not particularly remunerative but then of course big cases involve the cost of a very expensive QC and weeks of preparation before trial.
On the minor crime are you going to revert back to when Inspectors prosecuted, doubt that as well, the Police didn't want that job when they had it. In fact it is all becoming very costly and the poor old elcted police chief would need an army of support staff or the wheels of local justice would grind to a halt.
On your second point the judiciary is fiercely independent of all governments and will resist any minister that attempts to prejudice or manipulate that independence. You do not say how Michael Howard gave rise to the accusation that he was attempting to exceed his powers.
All in all the UKIP/Tory proposed system would work out more expensive.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
#19
looks like debate is setting in on this interesting issue.
i vaguely remember michael howard when he was home secretary having decisions he made continually being overturned by the juduciary.
considering that he is a qualified queens counsel, not very clever.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
#20
The staff and accommodation are already in place. This does not add more staff (maybe less). What we are talking about is placing them under control of an elected official. You can get rid of police committees and all that goes with them....
Tell them that I came, and no one answered.