On Fri, 09 May 2008 16:05:39 +0100, Cynic
wrote:
>On Fri, 09 May 2008 15:50:29 +0100, MM wrote:
>
>>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!
>
>Mainly because experience tells me that they will leave the *real*
>troublemakers alone and harrass the youngsters who rarely cause
>significant problems.
Well, that is because they are not addressing the targets accurately,
not because of the zero-tolerancing policy itself (which is what this
amounts to).
>There is something very wrong with the concept of having the state
>deliberately harass people who are not at the time breaking any laws,
>especially when the *only* purpose is to upset the people targetted.
Upset? Aw, diddums! These folks, like the yobs I often see on the
local buses, make other people's lives a misery. Just the effin' and
blindin' bit makes a lot of older people very uncomfortable, not to
say threatened.
And also, it's not like the cops are going to be picking on just
anybody, but singling out those who are already known to them.
>If you or I did the same thing to someone we took a disliking to, we'd
>be prosecuted and probably end up with an ASBO at the very least no
>matter how justified we are in disliking the person.
This is not about "disliking" someone, but about nipping potential
further problems of atrocious behaviour in the bud when those who have
already committed such are encountered.
>It is certainly not a technique that will make anyone's behaviour any
>better, and is very likely to make them justifiably upset and lead to
>greater antisocial behaviour.
So we do absolutely nothing and allow the intimidation, burglary,
criminal damage, antisocial behaviour and vehicle crime to carry on as
per usual?
MM |