5 years hard labour ?

[Mjolinor]

Interesting one this: https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@53.7693859,-2.3313988,3a,75y,7.64h,80.3t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s0U8EoCRte-ssVAeKqN699Q!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fcb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile%26w%3D900%26h%3D600%26pitch%3D9.701362164361711%26panoid%3D0U8EoCRte-ssVAeKqN699Q%26yaw%3D7.64084249455372!7i16384!8i8192?coh=205410&entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI0MDgyMS4wIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D

 

Dual carriageway with streetlamps and no repeater signs so 30MPH. You would not live long on that road doing 30.

 

[Cyker]

Err, what?

[First_Toyota]

So much of the debate in this thread comes down to ‘big’ Government vs ‘small’ Government.

My personal view is that Government should seek to have as little impact on the lives of the people as possible. Local decisions - such as speed limits in many cases, planning, even education - should be dealt with at a local level, by those who understand the needs and aspirations of local people. Regional Government should be something we all push for. More accountable and local democracy could be such a powerful force for good and for genuine change.

National Government should concentrate on national issues, such as health and defence. The current Government seems to me to be far too interested in interference in the lives of normal people on issues about which it knows little. 

Yes, Minister was such an incredible series…and so little has changed! Hilarious? Or was it actually a closet documentary?

 

[Bper]

23 minutes ago, First_Toyota said:

So much of the debate in this thread comes down to ‘big’ Government vs ‘small’ Government.

My personal view is that Government should seek to have as little impact on the lives of the people as possible. Local decisions - such as speed limits in many cases, planning, even education - should be dealt with at a local level, by those who understand the needs and aspirations of local people. Regional Government should be something we all push for. More accountable and local democracy could be such a powerful force for good and for genuine change.

National Government should concentrate on national issues, such as health and defence. The current Government seems to me to be far too interested in interference in the lives of normal people on issues about which it knows little. 

Yes, Minister was such an incredible series…and so little has changed! Hilarious? Or was it actually a closet documentary?

 

Government should recognise that we are capable of making rational and decisive decisions on our own. We don’t need a nanny state dictating every aspect of our lives. Government interference can sometimes be excessive, especially in areas that feel more personal or local. The key is to find a balance where government actions are both effective and respectful of individual freedoms. Transparency and accountability are crucial, ensuring that interventions address genuine needs without overstepping boundaries. Localised decision making can make government actions more relevant and responsive to community needs.It's interesting how 'Yes, Minister' managed to highlight the sometimes absurd realities of politics perhaps it was more insightful than we initially thought.☹️

[Mjolinor]

40 minutes ago, Bper said:

Government should recognise that we are capable of making rational and decisive decisions on our own.

That is exactly what they are trying to do away with. Ideally they would like no independent thought and follow the masses. They have made a lot of progress in that direction with things like football where millions of morons behave instead of being as we are designed to be. Sadly Darwins theories are fast disappearing and natural selection will sooner or later be illegal and destined to history.

 

[Haliotis]

“Government should recognise that we are capable of making rational and decisive decisions on our own…..”

Well, what about people who drive after drinking an obvious excess of alcohol?  Or those who ignore “relational” speed limits and end up causing carnage?  Or those who drive without insurance, oblivious to there being no financial protection for those that they maim?

Sorry, but people themselves have proven beyond doubt that they need to be compelled and made to conduct their behaviour.  Laws abound because society cannot conduct itself to respect the welfare of others around them.

[Mjolinor]

 

A simple solution is to stop categorising driving offenses as different from criminal. If a driving offense gave you a criminal record then people would not break the laws as readily.

It would obviously require better policing than our current force is capable of and that in itself is a diddly of a problem.

[Cyker]

6 minutes ago, Haliotis said:

“Government should recognise that we are capable of making rational and decisive decisions on our own…..”

Well, what about people who drive after drinking an obvious excess of alcohol?  Or those who ignore “relational” speed limits and end up causing carnage?  Or those who drive without insurance, oblivious to there being no financial protection for those that they maim?

Sorry, but people themselves have proven beyond doubt that they need to be compelled and made to conduct their behaviour.  Laws abound because society cannot conduct itself to respect the welfare of others around them.

They should be banned from driving and have their licences revoked. The fact that that is not happening is why driving standards are falling, as people see violations constantly with no consequence and start to think why am I waiting in line like a mug when all those people drive through those red lights at 40mph on a bus lane every day and they are still driving.

At the moment it feels like one-off minor offences get disproportionately punished, while blatant and dangerous repeat offences are ignored.

 

[Bper]

32 minutes ago, Haliotis said:

“Government should recognise that we are capable of making rational and decisive decisions on our own…..”

Well, what about people who drive after drinking an obvious excess of alcohol?  Or those who ignore “relational” speed limits and end up causing carnage?  Or those who drive without insurance, oblivious to there being no financial protection for those that they maim?

Sorry, but people themselves have proven beyond doubt that they need to be compelled and made to conduct their behaviour.  Laws abound because society cannot conduct itself to respect the welfare of others around them.

You're absolutely right that there are situations where laws and regulations are essential to protect people from harm, like in cases of drunk driving or reckless behaviour. These laws are necessary to ensure public safety because, unfortunately, not everyone acts responsibly. However, I believe that the balance comes in not extending this level of control into every aspect of life. While government intervention is crucial in certain areas, especially where public safety is concerned, it's also important that the government respects the ability of responsible citizens to make their own decisions without unnecessary oversight. It's about finding that middle ground where essential protections exist, but personal freedoms are also respected.☹️

[Bper]

30 minutes ago, Mjolinor said:

 

A simple solution is to stop categorising driving offenses as different from criminal. If a driving offense gave you a criminal record then people would not break the laws as readily.

It would obviously require better policing than our current force is capable of and that in itself is a diddly of a problem.

With 32 million drivers on the road and the many irresponsible individuals who see themselves unaccountable as they never believe It's their fault, the courts already have years of backlog so how would they deal with them.☹️

[Haliotis]

Bob, you have hit the nail on the head when you refer to the need for a balance of control, and this is where the government become intoxicated by their own powers, and bureaucracy goes beyond reasonable limits.

A simple example of how government get it wrong - it was decided that a set percentage of new cars must be EVs, or dealerships would be fined for not achieving that goal.  This all done without appreciating that it is the customer who decides the purchase - a salesperson can suggest an EV, but the customer can say no and, if that dealership refuses to sell an ICE car then the customer simply goes elsewhere. And there are plenty of used late model ICE cars available if a customer is really adamant.

[Bper]

9 minutes ago, Haliotis said:

Bob, you have hit the nail on the head when you refer to the need for a balance of control, and this is where the government become intoxicated by their own powers, and bureaucracy goes beyond reasonable limits.

A simple example of how government get it wrong - it was decided that a set percentage of new cars must be EVs, or dealerships would be fined for not achieving that goal.  This all done without appreciating that it is the customer who decides the purchase - a salesperson can suggest an EV, but the customer can say no and, if that dealership refuses to sell an ICE car then the customer simply goes elsewhere. And there are plenty of used late model ICE cars available if a customer is really adamant.

You've highlighted exactly where government control can go too far when it tries to dictate outcomes without considering how people actually behave in the real world. The situation with EVs shows how mandates can backfire when they ignore consumer preferences. It's not about opposing regulation, but about ensuring it's realistic and respects the choices of individuals.🙂

[AndyN01]

12 hours ago, Bper said:

You've highlighted exactly where government control can go too far when it tries to dictate outcomes without considering how people actually behave in the real world. ......

And what would the vast majority of politicians and/or Sir Humphrey and Sir Bernard (one of my all time favourite programmes 😀) know about how people actually behave in the real world?

And in any event, what would that have to do with moving their own, personal agenda forwards?

[First_Toyota]

54 minutes ago, AndyN01 said:

And what would the vast majority of politicians and/or Sir Humphrey and Sir Bernard (one of my all time favourite programmes 😀) know about how people actually behave in the real world?

And in any event, what would that have to do with moving their own, personal agenda forwards?

One of the reasons why I’d never consider being a politician, and like others in this thread I don’t really understand the motivations of those that do…there are so many variations in what we mean by ‘the people.’ Rich, poor, left, right, regional variations, education, social values, drivers and non-drivers, age…it’s impossible to please all of them, probably more than a quarter - some of the time - if you’re lucky!

At this point I should add that I exclude many ‘local’ councillors and officials from this statement, as I do believe that most do those (pretty thankless) tasks with good intention to support their local communities. 

Labour’s big challenge is to deliver what was, albeit vaguely, promised in the election campaign, ie sensible, grown up and stable Government. Regardless of our political colour, I think most people agree that the last 2-3 years under the Conservatives were chaotic and we did need a change. Whether that change will be for the better…we’ll have to wait and see…but I’m afraid I’m not hopeful. 

My initial view is that Labour will not do what Starmer specifically said he would do in his election ‘victory’ speech ie govern for ALL the people, regardless of who they cast their vote for. The early signs are that, like many (but not all) Governments, they will look to protect and advance core groups/supporters at the expense of others. They’ll naturally argue that isn’t the case, will make statements about “…those with the broadest shoulders…” and so on, but their administration will be about a lack of trust of ‘the people’ (there’s that word again!), greater state control and centralisation. It’s already happening with planning, and that will just be the start.

We should also remember that there seemingly wasn’t much enthusiasm for Labour - they were almost elected by default. The Conservatives had imploded, and the SNP too. Starmer was, in many ways, ‘lucky’ with his opponents. But that gives him a bigger challenge - with little actual enthusiasm for his Government, small issues will be magnified and I think he will struggle to keep his party together once things start getting really tough.

One final thought. The media often tell us how ‘stable’ and ‘measured’ Starmer is, looking back to his time as DPP. However, I’m not convinced his judgement is so sound. Yes, he was found not to have committed an offence after ‘Beergate’ but did he really think the ‘optics’ of that were sensible? Having been out campaigning, I think a genuinely ethical leader would have decided that a beer and pizza event probably wasn’t a good idea at a time people were still under restrictions. Would the Met Police have judged the same? Who knows, but I personally doubt it. That one incident put doubt in my mind about Starmer’s judgement - they really are all pretty much the same, they do seem to believe it’s one rule for them and another for ‘the plebs.’

 

[Bper]

1 hour ago, AndyN01 said:

And what would the vast majority of politicians and/or Sir Humphrey and Sir Bernard (one of my all time favourite programmes 😀) know about how people actually behave in the real world?

And in any event, what would that have to do with moving their own, personal agenda forwards?

Exactly! That's the irony, isn't it? Politicians and bureaucrats often seem detached from the everyday realities most of us face. It's no wonder shows like Yes, Minister resonate so well they capture that disconnect perfectly. When personal agendas come into play, it's even more challenging to ensure policies reflect the needs and behaviours of real people. Maybe if they spent a bit more time outside their offices, they'd have a better grasp of the impact their decisions actually have.🙂

[Mjolinor]

14 hours ago, Bper said:

With 32 million drivers on the road and the many irresponsible individuals who see themselves unaccountable as they never believe It's their fault, the courts already have years of backlog so how would they deal with them.☹️

Well they manage to deal with 67 million people as far as criminal offenses go. 🙂

 

[Bper]

1 hour ago, Mjolinor said:

Well they manage to deal with 67 million people as far as criminal offenses go. 🙂

 

There are growing concerns about how the criminal justice system is handling issues like prison overcrowding. It seems strange to many that, despite the pressing need for more prison spaces, the government has been so reluctant to build new prisons. This inaction is particularly worrying given the rising crime rates and the fact that courts are often advised against imposing jail sentences due to a lack of space.The situation raises questions about the government's commitment to tackling crime effectively. For example, shoplifting, particularly when the value of stolen goods is under £200, is often treated as a minor issue. The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) frequently decides not to pursue such cases, which can lead to minimal consequences for offenders.On the other hand, people who are prosecuted for minor offences like not paying the BBC TV licence fee or unpaid court fines sometimes end up in prison. This discrepancy is baffling. Why are people facing prison for these low-level offences, while more serious crimes often don’t lead to jail time? Perhaps community service would be a more suitable punishment for these minor cases.Additionally, despite repeated promises to tackle drug gangs, progress seems slow. Considering we’re an island nation, you’d think it would be easier to control drug trafficking. Plus, the practice of letting prisoners out early for good behaviour makes it seem like the deterrent effect of their sentences is weakened.Overall, these issues suggest that the criminal justice system might need a rethink. The reluctance to invest in new prison facilities, combined with uneven sentencing practices, undermines efforts to both prevent crime and ensure that offenders face appropriate consequences.☹️

[Haliotis]

The two main reasons, IMHO, for not handing out suitable sentences are (a) the lack of prison places, and (b) judges/magistrates view the severity of a sentence from how they would feel it- not from the point of view of hardened criminals who inwardly laugh at the “punishment”.  There would be more space in prisons if they were made austere institutions, where even the “tough guys” would shudder at the thoughts of going inside a second time.

The stupid thing is, where recruits for the paras willingly suffer hardships to earn their green berets, prison inmates scream brutality for less arduous punishment.

[Mjolinor]

Castration would be a good deterrent and that would also lead to fewer criminals in the future for the next generation to deal with.

[Bper]

52 minutes ago, Haliotis said:

The two main reasons, IMHO, for not handing out suitable sentences are (a) the lack of prison places, and (b) judges/magistrates view the severity of a sentence from how they would feel it- not from the point of view of hardened criminals who inwardly laugh at the “punishment”.  There would be more space in prisons if they were made austere institutions, where even the “tough guys” would shudder at the thoughts of going inside a second time.

The stupid thing is, where recruits for the paras willingly suffer hardships to earn their green berets, prison inmates scream brutality for less arduous punishment.

Albert You’ve raised some important points, but I think there’s more to the issue. It’s not just about the lack of prison spaces or judges’ personal perspectives. The real problem is a broader failure in our justice system, which needs a serious overhaul.Yes, overcrowding is a big issue, and it’s partly because of years of poor planning and insufficient funding. But making prisons more austere won’t solve everything. While tougher conditions might deter some, it could also cross the line into inhumane treatment and fail to address the deeper causes of crime.Comparing prison conditions to the hardships faced by elite military recruits isn’t quite right. Those recruits are voluntarily enduring challenges to achieve a goal, while prisoners are serving sentences as a consequence of their actions. Instead of just making prisons harsher, we need a system that both punishes harshly and rehabilitates effectively.Addressing crime means looking at the root causes and finding ways to prevent reoffending. It’s not just about increasing the severity of punishment but about creating a justice system that works.🙂

[Bper]

38 minutes ago, Mjolinor said:

Castration would be a good deterrent and that would also lead to fewer criminals in the future for the next generation to deal with.

John,It makes sense that people suggest extreme measures like castration as a way to deter crime, but these approaches are not only seen as ethically wrong by the judicial system, but they also don't work. History and research show that harsh punishments don't effectively stop crime or prevent reoffending. Crimes, especially those involving violence against children and women, these crimes are often rooted in deep psychological issues. Focusing on extreme punishments doesn’t address these underlying problems. Instead, working on improving how the justice system handles offenders by using methods that are supported by evidence. A more effective approach balances with practical, proven strategies to prevent crime and keep both victims and the public safe.🙂

[Haliotis]

Rehabilitation is all very well, but educating criminals to voluntarily change direction and mend their ways has such a poor success rate that, when a criminal-made-good comes to the public eye, the reformed person virtually makes headline news.  Prisoners should not live in an environment where they feel comfortable, and they should be made to carry out useful hard work during their confinement.  This would actually help to free up prison places if a harsher environment produced shorter terms of imprisonment with effective reluctance to go back inside in the future.

Also, I don’t accept a poor upbringing as an excuse for criminality.  What some people call a poor upbringing today, was probably an average situation for youngsters when I was a kid.  I had a happy childhood, but I know that my grandchildren would pale at the thoughts of living the same lifestyle as I on a daily basis.

I managed to get to grammar school and the Masterrs - as our teachers were called - were brutal by today’s standards; in fact, they would have been sacked, and probably punished at law, by some of the treatment which we saw as normal.

My dad was a fair man, but I was physically punished when I deserved it - far from this having an adverse effect, as I grew up into adulthood Dad and I were closely-bonded firm friends.  I lost him in 1969, but I still miss him as much today.

I still believe that the saying, “Spare the rod and spoil the child”, carries a lot of truth.

[AndyN01]

I well remember a story from my dad in his army days.

A "batman" thought it'd be a nice little earner to "acquire" so stuff from the officers. He was a rather "rotund" chap, a bit like Billy Bunter.

He was sent to"the glass house" and conditions were, apparently, a bit harsh. Everything was done "at the double" and was simply repeated, then repeated then repeated. The day started at 6am and finished at 9pm and there was no respite from "duties" for the whole time.

With his release he returned to camp and my dad, who was on guard duty, didn't even recognise the slim guy coming back to camp.

The batman vowed to never pinch so much as a paperclip ever again.

And this happened in a matter of weeks.......

So the consequence of being caught and "punished" most certainly did alter behaviour.

But whether we could do this with civilians is doubtless a matter for much discussion.

If you're skilful enough to commit crime then surely you're cleaver enough to do something that is lawful - but perhaps not as lucrative?

[Mjolinor]

Teaching acceptable morals from a young age would go a long way instead of teaching that it is always someone else's fault and you can get paid for it if you whinge.

 

[Bper]

1 hour ago, Haliotis said:

Rehabilitation is all very well, but educating criminals to voluntarily change direction and mend their ways has such a poor success rate that, when a criminal-made-good comes to the public eye, the reformed person virtually makes headline news.  Prisoners should not live in an environment where they feel comfortable, and they should be made to carry out useful hard work during their confinement.  This would actually help to free up prison places if a harsher environment produced shorter terms of imprisonment with effective reluctance to go back inside in the future.

Also, I don’t accept a poor upbringing as an excuse for criminality.  What some people call a poor upbringing today, was probably an average situation for youngsters when I was a kid.  I had a happy childhood, but I know that my grandchildren would pale at the thoughts of living the same lifestyle as I on a daily basis.

I managed to get to grammar school and the Masterrs - as our teachers were called - were brutal by today’s standards; in fact, they would have been sacked, and probably punished at law, by some of the treatment which we saw as normal.

My dad was a fair man, but I was physically punished when I deserved it - far from this having an adverse effect, as I grew up into adulthood Dad and I were closely-bonded firm friends.  I lost him in 1969, but I still miss him as much today.

I still believe that the saying, “Spare the rod and spoil the child”, carries a lot of truth.

Albert, I completely understand where you're coming from, and I agree that rehabilitation has its challenges. It’s true that when someone genuinely turns their life around after a criminal past, it’s often seen as a big deal precisely because it doesn’t happen as often as we’d like. That said, while the success rates of rehabilitation might not be as high as we hope, in the absence of other methods it’s still important to keep trying. If it can help even some people change their ways, it can make a significant difference.

Regarding prison conditions, I agree that they shouldn't be so comfortable that they make imprisonment seem easy. Prison is meant to be a deterrent, and part of that is ensuring it’s a place where people don’t want to return. Hard work can certainly be part of the process, helping prisoners to develop skills and a work ethic that might serve them well once they’re released. But at the same time, I think the argument will always be careful that prison doesn’t become so harsh that it breaks people down completely, as not everyone is the same.

This can make it harder for them to reintegrate into society later on.As for the point about upbringing, I understand your perspective. Times have changed a lot, and what was considered normal back then might be seen differently today. You clearly grew up with strong values and discipline, which served you well. As did I, It’s true that a difficult upbringing isn’t an excuse for crime, but for some people, it can play a big role in shaping their behaviour. That’s why it’s important to consider these factors when we think about how to prevent crime in the first place.The saying “Spare the rod and spoil the child” does have a lot of truth to it, especially when we think about the importance of discipline and setting boundaries. But I also think todays attitudes lend more room to consider other approaches that can be just as effective in helping kids grow up to be responsible adults.It’s a complex issue, and finding the right balance between punishment, rehabilitation, and support is key to making sure our justice system is fair and effective.🙂