Southport Stabbing (2 Viewers)

Mucca Mad Boys said:

Every foreign criminal who’s committed a violent crime that we’ve been unable to deport because of the risk of "torture or inhuman treatment"… what about public safety?

*in this respect, the definition of what constitutes ‘inhuman treatment’ has been stretched so far you get scenarios where if a criminal’s child doesn’t like foreign chicken nuggets or if they fear their beard will be forcibly shaved off. Unfortunately, it’s not a joke and both of these reasons have been given, and accepted as reasons to not deport someone.

Click to expand...

Still not quite the same as you said
The principle is sound to not deport someone somewhere where they will be killed or tortured
The level in the two cases you’ve outlined comes nowhere near the level we would agree with

But of course 'lessons will be learned'.
Will they fuck - They never are. Too much kicking of cans down the road.
Bastards the lot of them - Police, social services and in some cases parents.
Absolute scum and I hope the general public take the time to remind them every day for the rest of their lives.

Sky Blue Pete said:

Still not quite the same as you said
The principle is sound to not deport someone somewhere where they will be killed or tortured
The level in the two cases you’ve outlined comes nowhere near the level we would agree with

Click to expand...

It doesn’t really matter if we agree or not, the legal precedents have been set and therefore, the rights of criminals have been prioritised over public safety. These are everyday occurrences that aren’t just noise, it’s a logical progression from various legislationpassed since 1997.

That is one dimension of the conversation, overall soft-on-crime policies have equally been damaging. Nonetheless, that’s another convo.

To use an example away from crime or immigration, we prevented from sanctioning Russian vessels in the Channel because it’d be a breach of ‘international law’.

Mucca Mad Boys said:

It doesn’t really matter if we agree or not, the legal precedents have been set and therefore, the rights of criminals have been prioritised over public safety. These are everyday occurrences that aren’t just noise, it’s a logical progression from various legislationpassed since 1997.

That is one dimension of the conversation, overall soft-on-crime policies have equally been damaging. Nonetheless, that’s another convo.

To use an example away from crime or immigration, we prevented from sanctioning Russian vessels in the Channel because it’d be a breach of ‘international law’.

Click to expand...

We’ve never imprisoned more people
USA imprisons more people as a percentage than any western nation and treats them far worse does it decrease criminal activity?

Without safety (and it’s not helpful to talk this case or other high profile ones) there is no opportunity for anyone to recognise the damage they’ve done, why and what they can do to not do it again

I don’t think we can afford a criminal justice system that locks up everyone who commits crime and just locks up those who we’ve imprisoned without any thought to what happens when they’re released

There's not a better source for this at the moment, but it's honestly not that unbelievable.

The headteacher accused of racism when raising concerns, which essentially shut them down.

Sky Blue Pete said:

We’ve never imprisoned more people
USA imprisons more people as a percentage than any western nation and treats them far worse does it decrease criminal activity?

Without safety (and it’s not helpful to talk this case or other high profile ones) there is no opportunity for anyone to recognise the damage they’ve done, why and what they can do to not do it again

I don’t think we can afford a criminal justice system that locks up everyone who commits crime and just locks up those who we’ve imprisoned without any thought to what happens when they’re released

Click to expand...

Surprisingly when we had prisoners who had genuine hard labour and it was actually a deterrent, there was plenty of room for them all and they cost less. Losing their liberty is now the only genuine part of their punishment.

It doesnt help that we have so many people (and particularly young, but I'm not saying all young people before anyone pulls it apart) who have no respect for others let alone the law. Unfortunately they're aided by others who say we don't have the resources to criminalise them, by so many who are out of touch and concentrate on the wrong issues, by a corrupt law enforcement and one who isn't given the resources or enabled to actually police in the way most of us would want to. Long drawn out trials that costa fortune and serve no purpose other than to line the pocket of expensive clever lawyers who look for loopholes in laws that are there to protect us. You only have to look at the trial of the Manchester brothers that started yesterday. We've all seen the video and yet the plea was not guilty. Shouldn't have even been allowed to go to trial.

Grendel said:

We could actually move prisoners abroad and agree a deal with another country - we don’t even have to build more prisons and it removes the argument that they are full

Click to expand...

Wasn’t it human rights activists who criticised Refom’s plans to send prisoners to El Salvador?

Head teacher pressured to play down how serious a risk he was because he was black. That was by cahms and his dad.