On Fri, 9 May 2008 04:00:43 -0700 (PDT), Maria
wrote:
>On May 9, 9:28 am, MM wrote:
>> On Thu, 8 May 2008 19:15:13 -0700 (PDT), Maria
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> >On May 8, 9:27 am, MM wrote:
>> >> On Thu, 08 May 2008 03:10:46 +0100, judith
>> >> wrote:
>>
>> >> >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.
>>
>> >> Er, you first have to have engaged in intimidatory behaviour and
>> >> similar unpleasant activity:
>>
>> >> "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 what is the purpose of harrassing them, apart from to give the
>> >police something else to do, and for organs of the state to commit
>> >harrassment? (I understand that the DSS, TV licencing and DVLA are to
>> >be allowed to bug them repeatedly) Are organs of the state allowed to
>> >harrass people? Either they are innocent and should be left alone, or
>> >they are trouble, and should be off the streets. What legal premise is
>> >there for hounding someone who is free, has served their time, and
>> >not on probation or whatever?
>>
>> If they have been engaging in intimidation, burglary, criminal damage,
>> antisocial behaviour, or and vehicle crime, then it's pretty clear
>> they only have themselves to blame when the police arrive to move them
>> on, even if at that precise instant they are behaving like choirboys,
>> or may even be choirboys. You'll know how easy it is for 16-year-olds
>> to act the part, then change like the wind two minutes later!
>
>The rules in the past were that you had to get some evidence and
>prosecute these people and imprison them. It seemed to work. This
>doesn't, *and* it is wrong because it is arbitrary. Very wrong
>because it seriously undermines the cornerstone of our justice system
>and threatens to change it for good away from the notion of innocent
>until *proven* guilty in a court of law.
>Just because we have all become too lazy to care for our own
>neighbourhoods and for one another...now we expect the police and the
>state to do it increasingly. We get what we deserve.
We do indeed. Am I not always saying so? But now the police intend to
get tough with known troublemakers and everyone is up in arms!
MM |