|
|
Post by everso on Apr 28, 2009 14:23:25 GMT
NEW PRISON TO BE BUILT NEAR CHELMSFORD  Actually it's not really that near (it's nearer to Wickford) but that's two we have now. The other one is right in the centre of the town and dates back to the 19th century. A right grim old place it looks too. I daresay the new one will be state of the art 
|
|
|
|
Post by motorist on Apr 28, 2009 14:26:58 GMT
Well, someone has to keep you Essexers in your place  |
|
|
|
Post by riotgrrl on Apr 28, 2009 16:54:06 GMT
It's so stupid. The crime rate in England is not going up significantly, but the number of people being sent to prison is, and now the Govt is talking about investing £billions in massive big new superjails.
Wouldn't it make more sense to try to stop people committing crime, or, for those who are not dangerous, for them to make meaningful community payback rather than us paying £40k a year to keep them in jail?
|
|
|
|
Post by Patrick on Apr 28, 2009 18:37:59 GMT
NEW PRISON TO BE BUILT NEAR CHELMSFORD Actually it's not really that near (it's nearer to Wickford) but that's two we have now. The other one is right in the centre of the town and dates back to the 19th century. A right grim old place it looks too. I daresay the new one will be state of the art We were supposed to get one of those. It would have been nice because the prison at the castle would have been closed then and the whole place could have been opened to the public! Stupidly (considering the employment opportunities it would bring) I think someone somewhere made some noise and they backed off. |
|
|
|
Post by Patrick on Apr 28, 2009 18:42:51 GMT
It's so stupid. The crime rate in England is not going up significantly, but the number of people being sent to prison is, and now the Govt is talking about investing £billions in massive big new superjails. Wouldn't it make more sense to try to stop people committing crime, or, for those who are not dangerous, for them to make meaningful community payback rather than us paying £40k a year to keep them in jail? I thought I heard Jack Straw backing off from the 'superprison' idea the other day - because they hadn't been tried out properly. In fact they were going to - or have done it in France and it just didn't work. |
|
|
|
Post by rjpageuk on Apr 29, 2009 11:13:18 GMT
It's so stupid. The crime rate in England is not going up significantly, but the number of people being sent to prison is, and now the Govt is talking about investing £billions in massive big new superjails. Wouldn't it make more sense to try to stop people committing crime, or, for those who are not dangerous, for them to make meaningful community payback rather than us paying £40k a year to keep them in jail? Maybe it is more cost effective to just spend £40k a year to keep them away from us. We do seem to be moving toward the US model of just locking people up and forgetting about them as we can then forget about the problem. |
|
|
|
Post by housesparrow on May 2, 2009 21:29:21 GMT
We were supposed to get one of those. It would have been nice because the prison at the castle would have been closed then and the whole place could have been opened to the public! Stupidly (considering the employment opportunities it would bring) I think someone somewhere made some noise and they backed off. A few years ago I met a man who had been in the armed forces, and got "captured" during a training exercise in North East England. They stripped him to his undies and locked him up in a cold cell overnight before "interrogating" him in the morning. He was asked why he hadn't tried to escape and replied "Because I know I am in the old jail. It is in the middle of the town centre, and if you think I'm running down the High Street in my Y Fronts you can all think again." |
|
|
|
Post by Flatypus on May 2, 2009 22:32:01 GMT
How is it that most West European countries manage to have low prison populations and lower crime rates? They must be getting something right! I don't see much point inlocking people up unless they pose an active danger. In some cases it might be more of a deterrent not to. A self-important figure certainly doesn't want the stigma of a jail record but at least can slink away in jail. It's a differnt matter if the same figure has to be be seen reporting for community service every day!
|
|
|
|
Post by everso on May 4, 2009 14:51:12 GMT
How is it that most West European countries manage to have low prison populations and lower crime rates? They must be getting something right! I don't see much point inlocking people up unless they pose an active danger. In some cases it might be more of a deterrent not to. A self-important figure certainly doesn't want the stigma of a jail record but at least can slink away in jail. It's a differnt matter if the same figure has to be be seen reporting for community service every day! What do you do, though, about the serial thief/burglar? They might not be an actual danger to the person, but they certainly make life miserable for the victims. |
|
|
|
Post by riotgrrl on May 4, 2009 15:01:36 GMT
How is it that most West European countries manage to have low prison populations and lower crime rates? They must be getting something right! I don't see much point inlocking people up unless they pose an active danger. In some cases it might be more of a deterrent not to. A self-important figure certainly doesn't want the stigma of a jail record but at least can slink away in jail. It's a differnt matter if the same figure has to be be seen reporting for community service every day! What do you do, though, about the serial thief/burglar? They might not be an actual danger to the person, but they certainly make life miserable for the victims. If we were rigorous about making people complete community service orders, and if we were rigorous about using and monitoring the technology for Home Curfew Detention (? I might have those words in the wrong order) Orders (i.e. electronic tagging), we could keep such offenders in their homes and with their families, while also ensuring they're doing meaningful work for the community during the day and staying at home in the evenings. This would be immediately cheaper than a prison sentence, and certainly cheaper in the long run. People lose their homes while in prison, especially council houses, and come out homeless and we, the taxpayer, then have to pay the costs of the housing department providing a service to them, and the costs of keeping them in hostels (which can be £500 or £600 a week!!!) Or, I suppose, we could just cut their hands off. ;D |
|
|
|
Post by everso on May 4, 2009 15:05:29 GMT
What do you do, though, about the serial thief/burglar? They might not be an actual danger to the person, but they certainly make life miserable for the victims. If we were rigorous about making people complete community service orders, and if we were rigorous about using and monitoring the technology for Home Curfew Detention (? I might have those words in the wrong order) Orders (i.e. electronic tagging), we could keep such offenders in their homes and with their families, while also ensuring they're doing meaningful work for the community during the day and staying at home in the evenings. This would be immediately cheaper than a prison sentence, and certainly cheaper in the long run. People lose their homes while in prison, especially council houses, and come out homeless and we, the taxpayer, then have to pay the costs of the housing department providing a service to them, and the costs of keeping them in hostels (which can be £500 or £600 a week!!!) Or, I suppose, we could just cut their hands off. ;D NOW you're talking! No, no. You know I'm only kidding. You are correct, of course, but until the things that you mention are actually carried out, what is the solution? |
|
|
|
Post by riotgrrl on May 4, 2009 15:19:28 GMT
If we were rigorous about making people complete community service orders, and if we were rigorous about using and monitoring the technology for Home Curfew Detention (? I might have those words in the wrong order) Orders (i.e. electronic tagging), we could keep such offenders in their homes and with their families, while also ensuring they're doing meaningful work for the community during the day and staying at home in the evenings. This would be immediately cheaper than a prison sentence, and certainly cheaper in the long run. People lose their homes while in prison, especially council houses, and come out homeless and we, the taxpayer, then have to pay the costs of the housing department providing a service to them, and the costs of keeping them in hostels (which can be £500 or £600 a week!!!) Or, I suppose, we could just cut their hands off. ;D NOW you're talking! No, no. You know I'm only kidding. You are correct, of course, but until the things that you mention are actually carried out, what is the solution? OK, this is going to sound really nasty and JSG-ish. Most crime is committed by the same handful of people. Property crime is committed overwhelmingly by drug addicts. There are 2 year olds in households across Britain tonight that we could predict with a fair degree of accuracy are going to grow up to be criminals and/or drug addicts and/or homeless and/or unemployed. That old 'folk tale' about one bad family dragging down a whole block or a whole street, esp. in council housing, is actually true, but it's not very liberal to say so. Go to any council scheme and everyone in that scheme can give you the names of the 1 or 2 families who are behind most of the trouble and anti-social behaviour there, whose children are the ring-leaders, infecting other children with their anti-social culture. But apparently it's not right to talk about 'an underclass' problem, although it seems to me that this is exactly what we've got. I would put a time limit on welfare benefits for the able-bodied. While still supporting those at a time of need, we have to face up to the fact that we're supporting generation after generation of some families who refuse to either work or want. I would immediately take any newborn children born to a drug addict into care and force their parents to give them up for adoption. By the time the kids are two it's too late; the importance of emotional development in the first two years of life is now starting to be recognised. The guy from Barnardos who said that if 'Baby P' hadn't been murdered he'd have grown up to become one of those feral youth wasn't JUST making a point guaranteed to get publicity for his charity; he was actually talking truth. But because we want a system that gives decent people a second chance and a bit of support, we end up also allowing these people to get away with it generation after generation. |
|
|
|
Post by everso on May 4, 2009 15:38:09 GMT
NOW you're talking! No, no. You know I'm only kidding. You are correct, of course, but until the things that you mention are actually carried out, what is the solution? OK, this is going to sound really nasty and JSG-ish. Most crime is committed by the same handful of people. Property crime is committed overwhelmingly by drug addicts. There are 2 year olds in households across Britain tonight that we could predict with a fair degree of accuracy are going to grow up to be criminals and/or drug addicts and/or homeless and/or unemployed. That old 'folk tale' about one bad family dragging down a whole block or a whole street, esp. in council housing, is actually true, but it's not very liberal to say so. Go to any council scheme and everyone in that scheme can give you the names of the 1 or 2 families who are behind most of the trouble and anti-social behaviour there, whose children are the ring-leaders, infecting other children with their anti-social culture. But apparently it's not right to talk about 'an underclass' problem, although it seems to me that this is exactly what we've got. I would put a time limit on welfare benefits for the able-bodied. While still supporting those at a time of need, we have to face up to the fact that we're supporting generation after generation of some families who refuse to either work or want. I would immediately take any newborn children born to a drug addict into care and force their parents to give them up for adoption. By the time the kids are two it's too late; the importance of emotional development in the first two years of life is now starting to be recognised. The guy from Barnardos who said that if 'Baby P' hadn't been murdered he'd have grown up to become one of those feral youth wasn't JUST making a point guaranteed to get publicity for his charity; he was actually talking truth. But because we want a system that gives decent people a second chance and a bit of support, we end up also allowing these people to get away with it generation after generation. What a refreshing post, Riot. And how sad that in today's world some people are more concerned with appearing liberal than telling the truth. You are 100% correct in my opinion and those that would disagree with you are most probably living in areas where their lives aren't in the least affected by the kinds of people you're talking about. Thanks for that! |
|
|
|
Post by housesparrow on May 4, 2009 16:16:25 GMT
A social worker speaking on the radio a few months ago (around the time Sharon Shoesmith got the elbow) said there are not enough foster homes for all the children who should be in care.
|
|
|
|
Post by riotgrrl on May 4, 2009 16:26:22 GMT
What a sad society!
|
|
|
|
Post by everso on May 4, 2009 16:27:41 GMT
Are we talking foster homes or actual adoption? I wouldn't mind betting there are lots of people who'd like to adopt a nice fresh new-born baby.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 4, 2009 16:32:59 GMT
NOW you're talking! No, no. You know I'm only kidding. You are correct, of course, but until the things that you mention are actually carried out, what is the solution? OK, this is going to sound really nasty and JSG-ish. Most crime is committed by the same handful of people. Property crime is committed overwhelmingly by drug addicts. There are 2 year olds in households across Britain tonight that we could predict with a fair degree of accuracy are going to grow up to be criminals and/or drug addicts and/or homeless and/or unemployed. That old 'folk tale' about one bad family dragging down a whole block or a whole street, esp. in council housing, is actually true, but it's not very liberal to say so. Go to any council scheme and everyone in that scheme can give you the names of the 1 or 2 families who are behind most of the trouble and anti-social behaviour there, whose children are the ring-leaders, infecting other children with their anti-social culture. But apparently it's not right to talk about 'an underclass' problem, although it seems to me that this is exactly what we've got. I would put a time limit on welfare benefits for the able-bodied. While still supporting those at a time of need, we have to face up to the fact that we're supporting generation after generation of some families who refuse to either work or want. I would immediately take any newborn children born to a drug addict into care and force their parents to give them up for adoption. By the time the kids are two it's too late; the importance of emotional development in the first two years of life is now starting to be recognised. The guy from Barnardos who said that if 'Baby P' hadn't been murdered he'd have grown up to become one of those feral youth wasn't JUST making a point guaranteed to get publicity for his charity; he was actually talking truth. But because we want a system that gives decent people a second chance and a bit of support, we end up also allowing these people to get away with it generation after generation. Great post! Don't be ashamed of having a sensible view ! Now , if you would just move south and leave those nationalists behind , I'm sure we can get you in as a conservative PPC. Apparently crime , and the numbers of the incarcerated have doubled compared to when MrsT ( genuflect ) came to power |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 4, 2009 16:34:48 GMT
If we were rigorous about making people complete community service orders, and if we were rigorous about using and monitoring the technology for Home Curfew Detention (? I might have those words in the wrong order) Orders (i.e. electronic tagging), we could keep such offenders in their homes and with their families, while also ensuring they're doing meaningful work for the community during the day and staying at home in the evenings. This would be immediately cheaper than a prison sentence, and certainly cheaper in the long run. People lose their homes while in prison, especially council houses, and come out homeless and we, the taxpayer, then have to pay the costs of the housing department providing a service to them, and the costs of keeping them in hostels (which can be £500 or £600 a week!!!) Or, I suppose, we could just cut their hands off. ;D NOW you're talking! No, no. You know I'm only kidding. You are correct, of course, but until the things that you mention are actually carried out, what is the solution? Stocks in their own front garden's . ? |
|
|
|
Post by riotgrrl on May 4, 2009 16:37:11 GMT
OK, this is going to sound really nasty and JSG-ish. Most crime is committed by the same handful of people. Property crime is committed overwhelmingly by drug addicts. There are 2 year olds in households across Britain tonight that we could predict with a fair degree of accuracy are going to grow up to be criminals and/or drug addicts and/or homeless and/or unemployed. That old 'folk tale' about one bad family dragging down a whole block or a whole street, esp. in council housing, is actually true, but it's not very liberal to say so. Go to any council scheme and everyone in that scheme can give you the names of the 1 or 2 families who are behind most of the trouble and anti-social behaviour there, whose children are the ring-leaders, infecting other children with their anti-social culture. But apparently it's not right to talk about 'an underclass' problem, although it seems to me that this is exactly what we've got. I would put a time limit on welfare benefits for the able-bodied. While still supporting those at a time of need, we have to face up to the fact that we're supporting generation after generation of some families who refuse to either work or want. I would immediately take any newborn children born to a drug addict into care and force their parents to give them up for adoption. By the time the kids are two it's too late; the importance of emotional development in the first two years of life is now starting to be recognised. The guy from Barnardos who said that if 'Baby P' hadn't been murdered he'd have grown up to become one of those feral youth wasn't JUST making a point guaranteed to get publicity for his charity; he was actually talking truth. But because we want a system that gives decent people a second chance and a bit of support, we end up also allowing these people to get away with it generation after generation. Great post! Don't be ashamed of having a sensible view ! Now , if you would just move south and leave those nationalists behind , I'm sure we can get you in as a conservative PPC. Apparently crime , and the numbers of the incarcerated have doubled compared to when MrsT ( genuflect ) came to power The numbers of people being sent to prison has continued to increase even when the crime rate has been going down. Sending people to prison is a policy choice, only vaguely related to the extent of and nature of crime. |
|
|
|
Post by riotgrrl on May 4, 2009 16:39:41 GMT
Are we talking foster homes or actual adoption? I wouldn't mind betting there are lots of people who'd like to adopt a nice fresh new-born baby. I'm not knowledgeable about medicine, but I wonder if a new-born baby with a drug abusing (or methadone using even) mother isn't going to be damaged in some way in any case. Have you ever seen film of babies born to heroin/methadone addicts, and heard their pathetic cries as they are forced into 'cold turkey'? It's desperately upsetting. Could these poor mites be saved if hit with instant love and proper care if adopted at birth? Surely some of them could? |
|
)
