On Fri, 9 May 2008 03:57:46 -0700 (PDT), Maria
wrote:
>On May 9, 9:24 am, MM wrote:
>> On Thu, 8 May 2008 19:18:02 -0700 (PDT), Maria
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> >On May 8, 2:39 pm, MM wrote:
>> >> On Thu, 08 May 2008 11:18:09 +0100, judith
>> >> wrote:
>>
>> >> >On Thu, 8 May 2008 07:45:38 +0100, "Dr Zoidberg"
>> >> > wrote:
>>
>> >> >>"judith" wrote in message
>> >> >>news:c4o424hsceinn3ppd1jtgbkhtg32fsp573@4ax.com...
>> >> >>> Police should be harassing badly behaved youths by openly filming them
>> >> >>> and hounding them at home to make their lives as uncomfortable as
>> >> >>> possible, the home secretary will say today.
>>
>> >> >>> The crime initiative is part of a government strategy to win back
>> >> >>> voters by proposing more radical approaches to tackling deep seated
>> >> >>> problems
>>
>> >> >>>http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2008/may/08/police.ukcrime
>>
>> >> >>> ffs - Innocent until ........... the police take a dislike to you.
>>
>> >> >>Surely if they are badly behaved , then they *aren't* innocent?
>>
>> >> >Behaved badly - in whose opinion?
>>
>> >> "The police followed 14 people in their teens and early 20s. Each was
>> >> well known to the force, having built up criminal records for offences
>> >> such as intimidation, burglary, criminal damage, antisocial behaviour
>> >> and vehicle crime."
>>
>> >> So, which part of intimidation, burglary, criminal damage, antisocial
>> >> behaviour or vehicle crime did you have trouble in understanding,
>> >> judith?
>>
>> >> >I'm sorry - I thought that we were all innocent until proven guilty -
>> >> >to which we can now add - disliked by the police.
>>
>> >> But only after having built up criminal records for offences
>> >> such as intimidation, burglary, criminal damage, antisocial behaviour
>> >> and vehicle crime.
>>
>> >So serving your time no longer means you have repaid your debt to
>> >society? Then they should not be out on the streets yet.
>>
>> Pardon me, but I thought all the police were doing was pinpointing
>> known troublemakers and getting them to move on?
>
>Move on where? To cause trouble somewhere else?
>
>>But maybe you welcome
>> intimidation, burglary, criminal damage, antisocial behaviour
>> and vehicle crime in your area...
>
>My brother-in-law's neighbours are drug dealers. They commit crime on
>a daily basis, but all the council did was set up some sound equipment
>to see if the fighting was causing enough noise to warrant a
>legitimate complaint. They still have their council flat and the
>police only come if there is a serious violent disturbance (and only
>then to break it up).
>Do you see my point yet?
No.
MM |