Welcome to Bliars Britain

Discussion in 'The Intelligence Cell' started by Dominus-Mortis, Jan 7, 2006.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. Another innocent lost...

    The article says it all, a quiet man with no involvement in crime. Thanks Tony, you've done us proud with your stance on crime.

    RIP mate and hope the bastards get what 's coming to them. (fat chance I know but one can dream)

  2. Pizza deliveryman won't be charged 5-29-2004

    A pizza deliveryman who killed an armed man who was trying to rob him will not face criminal charges, the Marion County [Ohio] Prosecutor's office announced today.

    "It's a clear case of self-defense," Deputy Prosecutor Barb Crawford said. "He did what the law allows him to do to protect himself."

    Ronald B. Honeycutt, 38, Carmel, shot Jerome Brown-Dancler, 20, 9500 block of East 39th Place, more than a dozen times on May 17.

    The evidence shows that Brown-Dancler pointed a 9mm handgun at Honeycutt, who had had just finished making a delivery about 11 p.m. in the 3600 block of Long Wharf Drive on the Far Eastside.

    Brown-Dancler's gun was loaded with 14 rounds, but had no bullet in the chamber, Crawford said. Honeycutt produced his own 9mm and fired until it was empty.

    After the shooting, Honeycutt told The Star he was just getting into his van when Brown-Dancler appeared to go for a gun.

    Honeycutt kept shooting after the would-be robber hit the ground, evidence shows. He took the man's gun, fearing it might be stolen if it was left with the body. He got in his van, drove to the Pizza Hut Restaurant where he worked and told his manager to call police, Crawford said.

    "This was late at night. This was a high-crime area," Crawford said. "He left because he wasn't sure whether or not Brown-Dancler had any friends with him. As it turns out, he did indeed have friends with him. They left when they heard shots fired."

    Police found both guns in Honeycutt's van.

    Honeycutt says he fired 15 shots, but Crawford said the medical evidence cannot determine how many times Brown-Dancler was hit. The evidence shows only that he was shot more than 10 but less than 15 times, Crawford said.

    Honeycutt said he was fired from his job at Pizza Hut because he had violated the firm's policy against carrying a gun.

    Better fired than dead.

    If more people shot their stick-up men the world would be a better place.
  3. alright, this is starting to get on my t*ts. Exactly how is this blair's britain? Did this type of thing happen before blair??? Of course it did. Crime has actually shown an overall decrease under blair, admittedly with a rise in "violent crime" in some areas (which has also been re-classified, accounting for some of the increase) however this is just continuing a trend already seen in previous governments.

    Blaming blair for issues with people who are, generally over 12 years old seems strange, as the society they grew up in was a conservative one. Only those over 30 remember a labour government. Surely society as it was then is what has shaped them?

    Some explination as to how this is all the fault of Blair would be good. Critisms of his foreign policy, attempted reform of the NHS (an NHS that was underfunded for many years) and some of the stance towards public education can be justified.
  4. I could decide I don't like you, walk to your house, shoot you in the face and then give myself up. Once convicted, if convicted, I could expect a sentence of no more than a dozen years inside with a third off for good behaviour. Chuck in a host of trendy 'excuses' I could give and I probably wouldn't even get the full sentence.

    Crime pays, and that is the government's fault.

    Now, where do you live? 8)
  5. Blair's foreign policy: "Do whatever America says, surrender to the French/Europeans at the first possible moment."
    Blair and the NHS: "I will reform the NHS..." (nothing has actually happened)
    Blair and guns: "I will ban all handguns, they're evil ! My buddy Jack said a .22LR can kill from 6 miles away !"
    Blair and crime: *pus hands up* "There is no violent crime on the streets of Britain ! Everything is nice and calm !!"
    Blair and sentencing criminals: "He did what ? Rape someone ? He said he's sorry though... ? That's OK then - give him 4 years in prision !" compared to "She owns what ? A gun you say ? She defended herself against an armed criminal ? 30 years in prision for her then, we can't have people thinking and defending themselves now, can we ?"

    Britain - the only country in the world where to defend yourself can reap a punishment far worse than any murderer or rapist ever could receive.
  6. And any other party would be different? Any attempt at longer prison sentences would increase overcrowding in a service that has been underfunded under both blair and major/thatcher. Early release is dependant on good behaviour. Can you also imagine a minimum of twelve years in prison? Twelve years of your life isn't to be sneered at. It has also become progressively harder to purchase firearms in this country (banning of handguns after dunblane).
    In my opinion there is noone who has put forward a workable solution to some of society's problems. Should the emphasis not be on making sure people don't reoffend? This can be achieved by changing their outlook in prison or through community service. People are placed in prison because they are believed to be a danger to society. Any hardline approach risks even greater prison overcrowding needing greater investment, the re-introduction of capital punishment raises questions of failure in their convictions (there have been MANY incidents of people executed, followed by their conviction later deemed unsafe or overturned).
    Any softer approach and there'll be accusations of allowing criminals to get away with it. How does society stop you walking into my house and shooting me? Removal of firearms, a custodial sentence as a must and an effective police force to mop up AFTER the crime has been committed. The reason you have walked into my house and shot me may be a mental instability of the way you have been brought up. Blame blair?

    Personally I think the best way forward is shorter sentences for "insignificant" offences. However in this time they should serve the community, visibly (a bit like the orange jumpsuits yanks wear). This would hopefully embarass those convicted, return something to society that society can see. This would hopefully free up space in prison for those who have commited the worst crimes, so they can be held until no longer a threat.

    I'm no staunch blair or labour supporter, but the jumping on a bandwagon of something bad happening and "blair's britain" get's on my t*ts.

    If you want to rip blair to pieces on his treatment of the MoD go right ahead, I think it's disgraceful the way he's sold out this country's armed forces.
  7. they're looking into reform of the law whereby defending yourself or property with reasonable force would not bring a sentence. The people who have been punished for shooting robbers is generally cos they shot someone in the back when robber's were fleeing the premises. If they felt so vulnerable why did they feel the need to shoot someone in the back who has commited a crime far less severe than the one the homeowner is about to commit?

    A robber who walks into a shop with a gun, with intent to use it, gets everything they deserve if they get shot, but not in the back (be a gentleman about it). If you think about what you might be implying is that with introduce the death penalty for robbery, burglary or armed robbery etc. Does that make sense???
  8. I could decide I don't like you, walk to your house, shoot you in the face and then give myself up. Once convicted, if convicted, I could expect a sentence of no more than a dozen years inside with a third off for good behaviour. Chuck in a host of trendy 'excuses' I could give and I probably wouldn't even get the full sentence.

    Crime pays, and that is the government's fault.

    Now, where do you live? 8)[/quote]

    During you time in jail, the tax payer could pay to educate you (for the second time.) You could get a degree with hons in law or media studies, who knows you might end up earning pots of cash working for some governmental 'think tank' loking at the reasons why people shoot people in the face for no reason.

    Seriously though - I think that for our society to be just (punishment meets the crime) everyone should have their DNA taken and listed, but only if the database were impregnable to hackers. Everyone would cary an ID card (only if they couldn't be counterfeited or the database couldn't be hacked) and punishments dished out such as those in Asian country's; Singapore doesn't dish out ASBOs - little cocky vandals are birched: very few instances of petty crime or vandalism. Drug dealers and trafficers are given 20-30+ in a stinking, cockroach infested hell (no PS2s or Sky digital). Vietnam shoots paedophiles, no more expensive round-the-clock watches to make sure he doesn't brake a fingernail.

    Instead of trendy 'workshops', 'thinktanks' 'studygroups' and listening to 'yoof culcha' send the regional forces' Cheif Sup Intendants to have a look see abroad. Im not saying turn Britain into some sort of police state.....but we have been too soft for too long. A quote from 'Batman Begins' goes something like; 'criminality breeds on the tolerance of weak governments'.

    Time for a new look at crime, victims and punishment. Not just looking at underprivilliged areas, young black men at the rights of murderers, rapists and scum.
  9. Singapore also has the highest execution rate of any country in the world, even higher than china. The majority of this is from petty drug peddling offences. The argument being that the death penalty for carrying more than a paltry amount of any hard drug is a suitable deterant. What they seem to have missed is the drug peddlers are just using Mules who are forced into it by threats to their families etc which is why the rate of drugs smuggling into Singapore has not decreased a single bit. Reference that aussie that was executed recently, he owned up on the spot, implicated a couple of people in sydney who were then arrested and was only smuggling drugs to repay a debt his brother owed to a loan shark (or was it drug person? whatever). He still got executed despite international pleas for clemancy. To suggest the UK should be more like singapore is digraceful.
  10. A few people have been quoted as saying they felt less-safe nowadys then they did 20 years ago. I for one felt safe with Mr Browning on my bedside table during the late 80s. The thing is, in today's Britain where self defence is required - most people don't have the MEANS to defend themselves. I could trust my old maw to put a round or two out from a small 2" snub revolver, but now without guns she is expected to use fists and harsh language (i'd guess). No fecking wonder why there are problems with this country.

    I say: tighten up our boarders, do better searching to stop illegal shite (guns, drugs, people) entering this country, arm every citizen and make it 100% legal to execute a criminal, should you happen across him.

    I guarantee the problem of rising violent crime will solve itself.

    Just to add:

    VIOLENT CRIME is RISING and has been RISING at a huge rate. To top this, FIREARM CRIMES has more than doubled since the 1997 total-ban on all handguns. You are more likely to be shot today than you ever were at any point in UK history.

    That in mind, how can anybody say Britain "works" or is "better" now than [insert period of time here] ? I'm sure Britain is better and does work for all those 3rd world layabouts who come here and sponge off the government. Alas, for everybody else (read: BRITISH FOLK) we are facked over by a government who wishes to sieze as much power as possible, and subsiquently wishes to remove as much power/freedom from the public as possible.

    The "anti terror" laws/acts ? That's your prime example. It is basically an "anti freedom of speech/expression/action, applied whenever the fack the government sees fit" law.
  11. just a little point... doesn't everyone say things were "better back then?"
    the mind does tend to gloss over the bad memories
    also increased media coverage and attention on these issues makes people "feel" less safe
    at least they are now worried about something other than 3 million unemployed, 3 day working weeks (when the unions brought the country to a standstill) and to be honest issues like jobs, economy and healthcare are far far far more likely to affect you than being shot by someone. Compare our crime rate, violent and non-violent, and fire-arms related to somewhere like america, where 1 in 3 american's owns a firearm. You allow everyone to carry a firearm and suddenly all those disgruntled exboyfriends/exgirlfriends and unhappy postal workers are walking round killing whoever they like. Columbine would, you hope, never happen in this country. Dunblane was bad enough. (you may be allowed a .22 with a license but it's a single shot weapon, you kill a lot less with one of those than an assault rifle, it's hoped)
  12. I am not suggesting that our judiciary mirror that of Singapore at all Crabby, what I am suggesting is that there are ideas that we can take from other countries adapt them for ourselves, and turn the balance of justice in favour of the victims of crime.

    I am not for one second suggesting that we excecute anyone for dropping litter or smoking the odd joint. But I do think that it is time that people don't feel afraid to come out their homes. Granted the 'perceived' fear of crime is actually higher than actually being a victim, but if you are 65 years old and are petrified to leave your house after 6pm there is absolutely no difference.

    My point is hit the criminals hard, with punishments that the law abiding MAJORITY of this country want. I dont really care how many prisoners are inside, or how many prisons are built. I know that if all paedophiles (who by their own admission cannot be cured) are locked up, then someones son or daughter isn't going to be a victim.
  13. ok, I did over-react a bit (feel very strongly on the singapore issue, makes me sick to my stomach)
    hitting hard can't be the only answer, some people come out of prison worse than when they go in
    I feel there needs to be something to humiliate these people. that way they may feel embarassed by what they've done and if you see someone cleaning your town street or picking up litter on an a road in a bright orange suit then you can feel that they're repaying some of that debt for say robbing a shop.
    Perception is a huge problem, in so many areas people aren't afraid to be out of their homes. However there are areas, hotspots, where something needs to be done. Not all hoody-wearers are criminals who are going to kick you in the face for £1.50, but a group of youths hanging around after dark is enough to worry most people.
    Perhaps our problems are based in our education system and the education system these crininal's parents went through. We can't just blame teachers etc, but an approach covering all aspects of our lives has to be far more effective
  14. Legalise drugs. The cost of treating those that take it too far will be miniscule compared to the cost of what, 80% of current crime being drug related?

    And if I want to stuff my body full of heroin and sit slumped in a corner for the two years it takes me to die, why shouldn't I? Alcoholics do it all the time and get sympathy, why should an artificial classification make so much difference?

    Are rhetorical questions worthwhile?
  15. in_the_cheapseats

    in_the_cheapseats LE Moderator

    You ever been there? Safest streets I have ever been on, night or day. As a side point, I personally think castration would be an option for rapists, pedersats and paedophiles :evil: