In message , MM
writes
>On Fri, 9 May 2008 23:11:05 +0100, Richard Miller
> wrote:
>
>>In message , MM
>> writes
>>>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."
>>>
>>>MM
>>
>>Please stop confusing a strictly controlled pilot with what is highly
>>likely to happen once they roll this out.
>>
>>The one thing that is absolutely certain is that this will lead the
>>people so harassed by the police to conclude that if they are going to
>>get hassle even when they are not doing anything wrong, there is no
>>point in behaving themselves. A more counter-productive approach would
>>be very hard to imagine. Whoever dreamt this up should have Cliff
>>Richard played at them full blast for 24 hours non-stop.
>
>And, of course, it didn't work for New York, did it?
>
I have no idea. Do you believe it did? If so, on what basis? And why on
earth do you think that something tried out in the very different social
and cultural world across the Atlantic has any relevance to our problems
here?
--
Richard Miller |