International News Black Lives Matter

The ignorance of many when it comes to criminality is sadly a reflection on sensational journalism and (un)conscious bias. Its far to simple to say that people commit crimes because of their ethnicity or country of origin, any more than it is right to blame single parent families or violent video games. Socio-economic background is a bigger influence, as is mental health, poor education, especially those who are excluded from mainstream education. Race is a factor in that many of the most ethical diverse communities are also often the poorest, with poor schooling etc. But I would argue that the environment is a greater influencing factor rather than the colour of your skin.

The media select one or two cases to focus on and often drive the narrative. Karen Matthews faked her own child's disappearance for money and TV fame. She had servere learning difficulties, had been in a number of abusive relationships and relied entirely on benefits. She was labelled the worst mum in the country and has been hounded on her release from custody.

The McCanns left the three young children unattended for several nights in a foreign country and were given an audience with the Pope, flown around the world and had their mortgage paid out of contributions raised to find Maddie. They were also doctors, relatively well off and had rich and influential friends.

White paedophile gangs have existed for ever, and apart from a few celebrity cases, barely get a mention. Asian paedophile gangs are rightly condemned but represent a very small fraction of offences by white sex offenders. Knife crime is committed by all ethnic groups linked to their own communities. Glasgow was one of the worst places for knife crime between white gangs. Birmingham has black and Asian gangs. Some areas of London are predominantly black gangs, others have just as many Asian and white members.

There isn't one single issue, or one single solution to crime, and focusing on ethnicity alone really misses the point and only reinforces how we've got so much wrong over the last 30 odd years when trying to fix the problem.
 
The ignorance of many when it comes to criminality is sadly a reflection on sensational journalism and (un)conscious bias. Its far to simple to say that people commit crimes because of their ethnicity or country of origin, any more than it is right to blame single parent families or violent video games. Socio-economic background is a bigger influence, as is mental health, poor education, especially those who are excluded from mainstream education. Race is a factor in that many of the most ethical diverse communities are also often the poorest, with poor schooling etc. But I would argue that the environment is a greater influencing factor rather than the colour of your skin.

The media select one or two cases to focus on and often drive the narrative. Karen Matthews faked her own child's disappearance for money and TV fame. She had servere learning difficulties, had been in a number of abusive relationships and relied entirely on benefits. She was labelled the worst mum in the country and has been hounded on her release from custody.

The McCanns left the three young children unattended for several nights in a foreign country and were given an audience with the Pope, flown around the world and had their mortgage paid out of contributions raised to find Maddie. They were also doctors, relatively well off and had rich and influential friends.

White paedophile gangs have existed for ever, and apart from a few celebrity cases, barely get a mention. Asian paedophile gangs are rightly condemned but represent a very small fraction of offences by white sex offenders. Knife crime is committed by all ethnic groups linked to their own communities. Glasgow was one of the worst places for knife crime between white gangs. Birmingham has black and Asian gangs. Some areas of London are predominantly black gangs, others have just as many Asian and white members.

There isn't one single issue, or one single solution to crime, and focusing on ethnicity alone really misses the point and only reinforces how we've got so much wrong over the last 30 odd years when trying to fix the problem.

Lack of respect for authority is the starting point for criminal behaviour.

Getting a clip round the ear from the local bobby harmed nobody and you learnt PDQ.

Unfortunately we now have decades of softness embedded into the system.

Just one from the local rag, gets 12 years but will be out in 6 no doubt.


His victim has her life ruined for far longer.

Here is a radical idea, full sentence to be served unless the offender earns an earlier release by educating themselves, showing genuine remorse and rebuilding the potential that we all have.

Knife crime? Go in hard. 5 years for carrying. 10 years if you use it. As a starting point.

Vote for me as Home Sec. :D
 
Do you think the sentence was correct?

So I hope everyone knows that the act of burning the Union Flag is perfectly legal in Britain. It is a protected form of Freedom of Expression.

It's just you have to own the flag in question. This protestor obviously didn't, and therefore was prosecuted for attempted arson (i.e the destruction by fire of someone else's property)

Here's the sentencing guidelines for arson:

There's two dimensions for sentencing with regards arson - culpability and harm.
There's zero doubt that the level of culpability was category C.....there was no planning, it was an act committed on impulse.

So then sentencing comes down to the level of harm caused. The value of the damage was zero, and it caused zero physical harm to anyone. Therefore the only way you can justify jailing him is if you can legally argue that his actions caused serious psychological harm.

I'm sure it was distressing for many veterans, and that's important. But I highly doubt that anyone was traumatized to the extent that they needed to seek psychological treatment (which is what is intended by Category 1).


So yeah, under the law as it is currently written - which is what's important; not how much outrage it causes to Daily Mail readers - a community order looks to me like the correct punishment in this instance. If you disagree, you probably need to get the law changed.

And yes, I agree with Boogaloo that the guy who took a wizz against a memorial was harshly treated. A classic case of judicial activism, which is something I hate.
 
  • React
Reactions: QR
Lack of respect for authority is the starting point for criminal behaviour.

Getting a clip round the ear from the local bobby harmed nobody and you learnt PDQ.

Unfortunately we now have decades of softness embedded into the system.

Just one from the local rag, gets 12 years but will be out in 6 no doubt.


His victim has her life ruined for far longer.

Here is a radical idea, full sentence to be served unless the offender earns an earlier release by educating themselves, showing genuine remorse and rebuilding the potential that we all have.

Knife crime? Go in hard. 5 years for carrying. 10 years if you use it. As a starting point.

Vote for me as Home Sec. :D

Respect for authority is difficult. I've spent most of my adult life working in Criminal Justice, yet when I go to some away games I am treated like a criminal by police, often with implicit threats or intimidation thrown in. Should I respect that? Should I accept that?

But I make the choice on going to certain games, and if I don't like it then I can stay at home. But what if I experienced the same simply because of how I looked, or where I come from, and that experience is in all aspects of my life. Should I respect that? Should I accept it? And if I don't, then what do I do about it? Would a clip round the ear make things better or worse?
 
.....
There isn't one single issue, or one single solution to crime, and focusing on ethnicity alone really misses the point and only reinforces how we've got so much wrong over the last 30 odd years when trying to fix the problem.

A detailed post on a subject the poster knows about. May not be the best post of 2020, but it gets my vote.
 
A detailed post on a subject the poster knows about. May not be the best post of 2020, but it gets my vote.

High praise indeed. You have to sift through a lot of s**t, but I occasionally scrape together the odd gem!!!
 
Ahhh, the good old Daily Heil. Bloke tries to torch a flag, and the courts do nothing. OUTRAGE, OUTRAGE, BLM this, BLM that....

Errr, actually that's not correct. If you read the full story, you'll see that he got a two-year conditional discharge and told to pay ยฃ340 in costs. He's a student, so ยฃ340 is probably quite a lot of money to him. Plus for the next 2 years if he so much as farts in an elevator - he's going to be doing bird.

Having said that, the bloke who took a wizz against a memorial should have been given the same, and should not have been jailed.
Bloody student again
 
So I hope everyone knows that the act of burning the Union Flag is perfectly legal in Britain. It is a protected form of Freedom of Expression.

It's just you have to own the flag in question. This protestor obviously didn't, and therefore was prosecuted for attempted arson (i.e the destruction by fire of someone else's property)

Here's the sentencing guidelines for arson:

There's two dimensions for sentencing with regards arson - culpability and harm.
There's zero doubt that the level of culpability was category C.....there was no planning, it was an act committed on impulse.

So then sentencing comes down to the level of harm caused. The value of the damage was zero, and it caused zero physical harm to anyone. Therefore the only way you can justify jailing him is if you can legally argue that his actions caused serious psychological harm.

I'm sure it was distressing for many veterans, and that's important. But I highly doubt that anyone was traumatized to the extent that they needed to seek psychological treatment (which is what is intended by Category 1).


So yeah, under the law as it is currently written - which is what's important; not how much outrage it causes to Daily Mail readers - a community order looks to me like the correct punishment in this instance. If you disagree, you probably need to get the law changed.

And yes, I agree with Boogaloo that the guy who took a wizz against a memorial was harshly treated. A classic case of judicial activism, which is something I hate.
Not to sure if the law was changed but arson of the queens docks still carries the death sentence and I do know high treason was served with the death penalty but they changed that law fairly recently, so as regard the burning the flag of Great Britain inwaouldnassuk there must be some sentence that would be afforded to the perpetrator...... but not the death penalty
 
Not to sure if the law was changed but arson of the queens docks still carries the death sentence and I do know high treason was served with the death penalty but they changed that law fairly recently, so as regard the burning the flag of Great Britain inwaouldnassuk there must be some sentence that would be afforded to the perpetrator...... but not the death penalty

That's a myth.

In fact, the offence of arson in royal dockyards was abolished by the Criminal Damage Act of 1971.
And all capital offenses were abolished by the Crime and Disorder Act of 1998.

If you don't believe me - listen to Stephen Fry!?! (it's at about the 25:30 mark):
 
That's a myth.

In fact, the offence of arson in royal dockyards was abolished by the Criminal Damage Act of 1971.
And all capital offenses were abolished by the Crime and Disorder Act of 1998.

If you don't believe me - listen to Stephen Fry!?! (it's at about the 25:30 mark):
I googled it, a lot quicker ๐Ÿ˜Š
 
As players 'took the knee' before the Millwall v Derby game there was apparently audible booing from the stands. I apportion no blame, but there were no away fans present. Some Millwall fans showing their class again.

f***wit Millwall fans online trying to claim it was an anti-marxist protest rather than just racist a***holery.
 
Back
Top Bottom