On Sat, 10 May 2008 11:34:49 +0100, Richard Miller
wrote:
>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?
There are 385,000 articles on the web waiting for you to read.
MM |