Paignton Model Shop broken into.

[Titan]

Mr I,

 

So, what constitutes adverse impingement?

 

Is it a synonym for “annoy” at the low- grade end? And, are we talking about the sort of thing that annoys a grumpy old misanthrope, or the sort of thing that annoys, say 80% of the population? And, are people to be ‘banged up’ for annoying one another? Because, if they are, everyone will be imprisoned fairly rapidly ....... probably annoying one another incessantly.

 

Kevin

 

I don't think the minutiae are relevant to the point being made. It is the principle that counts. You can argue till the cows come home whether the line should be drawn 0.001 to the right or 0.001 to the left...

[Nearholmer]

The principle that some behaviours are unacceptable, and should attract punishment, is so basic and well-established that it isn’t worth discussion ....... it’s as old as humanity.

 

Which leaves ‘where to draw the line’, how to graduate punishment, how to rehabilitate, whether ‘hang-em; flog-em; bang-em-up’ actually works, and a stack of allied issues, as the important things to discuss.

 

They’re really difficult questions, especially at the moment, when the prison system is a better university of crime than it’s been in a very long time, and there is an undercurrent in the national mood that seems to favour glib answers over genuine thought.

 

Kevin

Edited October 25, 2017 by Nearholmer

[cctransuk]

Mr I,

 

So, what constitutes adverse impingement?

 

Is it a synonym for “annoy” at the low- grade end? And, are we talking about the sort of thing that annoys a grumpy old misanthrope, or the sort of thing that annoys, say 80% of the population? And, are people to be ‘banged up’ for annoying one another? Because, if they are, everyone will be imprisoned fairly rapidly ....... probably annoying one another incessantly.

 

Kevin

 

As you well know, it is the role of officials ranging from noise abatement officers to the police, the judges and government to determine what constitutes adverse impingement.

 

In our democracy I am happy to allow those authorities to make that judgement, at least for the timebeing.

 

If at some point I feel that they are being either too lax or too prescriptive, I am fortunate to have the usual resorts of a democracy to make my views known.

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

[phil-b259]

On the other hand, if we did hang 'em it would certainly stop them re-offending.  I don't think anyone can argue against that!

 

Nope - your logic is sound in that dead bodies cannot stalk the streets committing crime (outside the make believe world found in books / moves / TV).

 

Well done for stating the flipping obvious.

 

However as usual with people who make such statements, you are assuming the process of justice is 100% perfect.

 

But...

 

...The Birmingham 6,

 

...The Guildford 4,

 

....Alan Turing,

 

and many others are testament to the fact that the whole process of investigation and prosecution is NOT perfect - AND NEVER HAS BEEN.

 

Thousands of people have been sent to the gallows on flimsy or fabricated evidence over the centuries - with yet more having their life ruined for things that society today has actually enacted laws to protect.

 

As such I vehemently oppose the death penalty in ANY circumstances - and I also believe that everyone found guilty deserves the chance to redeem themselves. That doesn't mean it should be a quick or easy process requiring minimal effort of the guilty person, nor does it prevent the imposition of austere prison regimes or long sentences etc,  but as a recent ECHR judgement made clear, to completely rule out forever the possibility of someone eventually being able to redeem / rehabilitate themselves such that they can once again play a part in normal society (which is what the death penalty does) is fundamentally immoral and not worthy of civil human society.

Edited October 25, 2017 by phil-b259

[devonseasider]

 

However as usual with people who make such statements, you are assuming the process of justice is 100% perfect.

 

 

Calm down dear.  You'll do yourself an injury going on like that!

 

Read the post again & read #48 above.  At no point did I suggest that anyone should be hanged.

 

"There are none so blind as they who will not see"  or something like that.

[plarailfan]

Ah well ! thankfully, the guy has been caught. He may or may not have learned a lesson from this experience, but will be processed through the justice system.

A while ago, there was a layabout living in the house across the street from myself. He used to have his front door open while he stood to smoke weed. One Saturday morning I started to load a few, unboxed locomotives into my car to run on the exhibition layout at a local show.

The layabout spotted a loco and said "I used to go spotting when I was a kid, is that a class 31" My heart sank, but I said (truthfully) oh it's just, an old Hornby class 47, which I re-painted, as it was a scruffy, secondhand purchase.

Funny enough he vanished from the scene and then, a report in the local paper stated he had been locked up for a spate of local crimes, including burglaries involving lots of expensive damage to premises, just to end up with a few £ from some vending machines ! God knows where he is now, but the newspaper report, stated he would not be allowed to come back to the area !

[phil-b259]

 

Read the post again & read #48 above.  At no point did I suggest that anyone should be hanged.

 

 

 

In which case I apologise for saying you did.

 

I stand by the rest of my statement though.

[cctransuk]

.....you are assuming the process of justice is 100% perfect.....

 

....the whole process of investigation and prosecution is NOT perfect - AND NEVER HAS BEEN....

 

Of course it's not - who suggested that it was?

 

On the other hand, I'd sooner have what we've got - even made a bit more severe - than a system whereby nothing effective is done against convicted felons just in case there's a miscarriage of justice.

 

Nothing is perfect - in fact, what is perfect is highly subjective. The best that we can hope for is a system that the majority feel is reasonable and proportionate; living in a democracy, we should get that if we all take the trouble to make our views known.

 

The disapproving minority will just have to lump it - or go elsewhere to find a system of government and justice which suits them !!

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

 

PS. ".... a recent ECHR judgement ...."  The sooner we're out of the jurisdiction of that body the better !

[petethemole]

 

PS. ".... a recent ECHR judgement ...."  The sooner we're out of the jurisdiction of that body the better !

 

 

A body which predates the EU and is not a part of it.

[Fenman]

A body which predates the EU and is not a part of it.

Churchill was one of the key movers, and Brits drafted much of the founding convention.

 

But human rights are for snowflakes, right? Please, government masters, take away my human rights so you can do what you want with me!

 

Paul

[beast66606]

Getting silly now and nothing to do with a model shop break in.

[phil-b259]

 

.....you are assuming the process of justice is 100% perfect.....

 

....the whole process of investigation and prosecution is NOT perfect - AND NEVER HAS BEEN....

 

Of course it's not - who suggested that it was?

 

On the other hand, I'd sooner have what we've got - even made a bit more severe - than a system whereby nothing effective is done against convicted felons just in case there's a miscarriage of justice.

 

Nothing is perfect - in fact, what is perfect is highly subjective. The best that we can hope for is a system that the majority feel is reasonable and proportionate; living in a democracy, we should get that if we all take the trouble to make our views known.

 

The disapproving minority will just have to lump it - or go elsewhere to find a system of government and justice which suits them !!

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

 

PS. ".... a recent ECHR judgement ...."  The sooner we're out of the jurisdiction of that body the better !

 

 

Making sentences passed down by the courts more severe or increasing the number of events bought before the courts is a separate matter from the issue of capital punishment - and a such persons will take their own views on what may or may not be suitable.

 

The bottom line is that should after 5, 10 or 20 years, etc it be found that a person has suffered a miscarriage of justice, that person will still alive and in a reasonably healthy state (i.e. not subjected to degrading and humiliating physical / mental treatment while 'inside'*) so they can be apologised to, compensated then welcomed back into society.

 

(degrading treatment by the way is NOT lacking Sky TV in your cell - it is not being able to go outdoors and get a few hours fresh air, not having access to educational facilities, not having reasonable medical care, not having nourishing (if basic) hot meals etc.

 

You cannot welcome back a corpse - and thats the point. Yes 'perfection' in its abstract sense is a very personal thing, however Criminal justice is not about being 'personal' it is in fact a scientific examination of the facts known at the time. A criminal trial is in effect no different to a scientific experiment - you start with a hypothesis then examine the evidence to test whether that hypothesis is true. 'Perfection' as such doesn't come into it - other than to say that a 'perfect' judicial system would never, ever get things wrong and allow a miscarriage of justice to occur.

 

Given people are quite capable of making mistakes or deliberately lying etc, as long as the criminal justice system involves human beings, perfection' is thus not possible. It follows then that as modern human society generally does not like killing people by mistake (be it through dangerous H&S at work, drowning at the beach, so it is with the criminal justice system and hence why capital punishment cannot ever be justified in a society that aims to truly be 'just, 'even' 'fair' or simply pain 'decent''

 

Fortunately it would seem that the majority of the UK population agree - so to use your own words in a different context  "The disapproving minority will just have to lump it - or go elsewhere to find a system of government and justice which suits them !!"

 

Now personally, I do have some sympathy with the view that prisoners have it too easy and are released before they are ready BUT if you take that view then as you say a big tax hike is necessary to fund the constriction of lots more prison places (which cannot be all stuck on remote islands miles from peoples homes - think about staffing costs etc) along with all the extra prison officers that entails . Yes you could get prisoners to undertake more work to pay for their stay but if the prison service is too sucessfull at it then all you do is put non-prisoners out of a job as business turns to take advantage of this new labour source! In short its very difficult to devise an effective prison system that does not become too much of a drain on the public finances - something the right wing press studiously ignore when writing all their outraged headlines about how judges / prisons are 'too lenient'

 

Granted I have strayed some distance from the original topic title, but I fear far too many people seem to think Crime and Punishment is a very simple case of locking people up or bringing back 'good old fashioned techniques'. If anything the sheer quantity of child abuse scandals over the past decade should be a wake up call that in many aspects of life 'the good old days' was anything but 'good' for the vulnerable / those at the margins of society. We owe it to them to do better in future and that is just as true in the field of crime and punishment where we should be using science and the latest research to try and design the optimum system for victims and perpetrators. Quite what the ideal mixture is remains elsive, but logic sugests that a place with low crime / reofending stats is a better place to start regardless of how 'fluffy' it may seem to 'traditionalists'.

 

P.S.

 

I hope you understand that the ECHR is not the same thing as the EU. Being a member of the latter is completely separate from the former (for example Russia is a member of the ECHR but not the EU). What is correct is that to be a member of the EU you have to be a member of the ECHR so in theory once we leave the EU the UK can then subsequently withdraw from ECHR participation.

 

However given even Russia with its terrible record on human rights (with regard to sexual orientation, race, anyone who tries to stand up to Putin, etc) still wants to be a member of the ECHR, then withdrawal reflects badly on the moral standards of the UK and indeed those persons calling for such an action. While its true that in recent years the ECHR has perhaps lost track of the reason it was established in the aftermath of WW2 - namely to call those who perpetrate genocide (e.g. Bosnia) or those why trample over human rights (e.g. the cold war communist regimes in Eastern Europe) to account, many of he ECHR judgements that have gone against the UK either are due to our own Westminster politicians / machinery gold plaiting / bungling HR related legislation (the same is true with 'EU directives' B******s go on about) or things that any decent society should have addressed years ago. For example the Prisoner voting saga was NOT (as presented in the UK press) about giving all prisoners the right to vote in every single election going, rather that a blanket prohibition is unnecessarily crude. Is it really that much of a problem if a person convicted of say an accounting fraud, in the last month of their sentence and who has shown that they have learnt the lesson of their ways can vote in some elections? If France, Germany, Switzerland, etc can all allow some form of prisoner voting (note they ALL VARY quite considerably in detail) without the sky falling in then so too can the UK.

Edited October 25, 2017 by phil-b259

[phil-b259]

Getting silly now and nothing to do with a model shop break in.

 

Quite so - but the administration of justice is a serious matter.

 

As with several other topics perhaps its a case of knowing the limits (and yes I'm guilty of overstepping them on occasion m'lord).

 

We might on one level all bemoan the 'lightness' of sentences given out in the past for this type of crime etc, but such generalised sentiments are rather different from posts that give the impression of a desire to return to capital punishment or that draconian sentencing will cure all ills.

Edited October 25, 2017 by phil-b259

[brianusa]

Recently some of my replies on various subjects have disappeared, one in response to this thread..  Definitely non controversial or adversarial so what happened?

 

Brian.

[Nearholmer]

assuming that they've caught the perpetrator, and can make the case, this appears to indicate that he is up something in the order of [correction] two years inside. https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/Burglary_Definitive_Guideline_web_final.pdf

Edited October 25, 2017 by Nearholmer

[Fenman]

assuming that they've caught the perpetrator, and can make the case, this appears to indicate that he is up something in the order of [correction] two years inside. https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/Burglary_Definitive_Guideline_web_final.pdf

At a cost to the taxpayer of £40,000 a year, so up to 80 grand then. Blimey.

 

Paul

[cctransuk]

At a cost to the taxpayer of £40,000 a year, so up to 80 grand then. Blimey.

 

Paul

 

A bargain - IMHO.

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

[Oldddudders]

Well, whatever the merits of prison sentences, as discussed above wonderfully off-topic, the guilty party has received one for 16 months. He's 53, a serial criminal - only been out of clink for a short time, after 40 months detention for supplying drugs on Shetland.

 

I hope the model shop can get some money back. I will be in there in the next ten days picking up an N15 they have ordered for me. 

[Re6/6]

That's good to hear Ian. 

[Ashcombe]

Read all about it here:-

 

http://www.devonlive.com/news/devon-news/great-train-robbery-thief-found-897678

[birdseyecircus]

Just watched ' caught red handed today on bbc1 which features this crime. I guess it is on iplayer.

 

Paul

[Re6/6]

Thanks for the tip Paul.

 

That is my local model shop and the owners showed stoical resolve after such a blow.

 

One has to wonder why the faces of convicted criminals are always blotted out in these 'police programmes'. This convicted scumbag's name is Campbell MacDiarmid and as can be seen also broke into the P&D big railway and stole a tool filled vehicle and valuable rivet guns and more.

 

I guess that it must be some sort of human rights issue. Mind you on some of them lately they do show the faces of these lowlifes.

Edited July 12, 2018 by Re6/6

[birdseyecircus]

Agree. Once convicted there face should be show. I understand if they are still awaiting a court appearance.

The whole issue of blurring faces and logos on tv bug me but that's for another day!

 

Paul

[dogbox321]

Thanks for the tip Paul.

 

That is my local model shop and the owners showed stoical resolve after such a blow.

 

One has to wonder why the faces of convicted criminals are always blotted out in these 'police programmes'. This convicted scumbag's name is Campbell MacDiarmid and as can be seen also broke into the P&D big railway and stole a tool filled vehicle and valuable rivet guns and more.

 

I guess that it must be some sort of human rights issue. Mind you on some of them lately they do show the faces of these lowlifes.

 

Its because the law in this country is a complete and total a**.

 

There is no "Criminal Justice System" left, just a joke that's been created by do-gooders and exploited by criminals.....

 

Some examples - the first is a classic - based on the current surge in Knife Crime:

 

A person carrying 2 knifes up his sleeves in a public place, admitting he would use them, and then fails to turn up to court....eventually when they catch him, gets 2 six month suspended sentences.  The penalty is more for doing 35 in a 30!  Hardly a deterrent to carry knives is it???

 

Some police officers have been told not to tazer people carrying acid, incase the person with the acid spills it on themselves.

 

Moped thefts and muggings - some officers wont give chase in case the moped driver injures themselves.

 

The whole system is so annoying. 

 

Regards,

 

C.

[Phil Parker]

Agree. Once convicted there face should be show. I understand if they are still awaiting a court appearance.

The whole issue of blurring faces and logos on tv bug me but that's for another day!

 

Paul

 

I suspect this is because these TV shows hang around for a long while on digital channels and it's perfectly possible that someone could serve their time and then find if they try to go stright that their mug appears on the telly. You might say this is a good thing but then you must accept that once convicted, someone can never leave their life of crime, no matter how minor the crime comitted. For those trying to stop people offending (Timpsons employ a lot of ex-cons with an impressive success rate for example), this would render their efforts useless.