'One-man crimewave' jailed for 134 burglaries (From Daily Echo)

Lengthy prison sentence may not stop him. Execution would. He has no respect for others and the law. Best get rid of scum like this.

Got luck against 'mr big' who's in with the warders.

The judge that let him off in July has got some serious apologising to do to the victims since his release.

.. a very simple change of emphasis in treating drug addiction as a medical problem (which it is), rather than a criminal matter, would see a huge reduction in this type of crime.

Advantages: -
1) Safe reliable supplies.
2) Medical supervision and help at hand.
3) Market taken away from dealers.
4) Organised crime syndicates suffer.
5) Huge savings to police, courts and prison services.
6) Huge reduction in burglaries, muggings etc.
7) With resulting huge decrease in crime victims and the distress it causes.
8) Gives Daily Mail one less thing to froth at the mouth over.

Disadvantages: -
I can't think of any.

That's too much like common sense though FF and there will be those that state that we shouldn't fund that particular treatment without looking at the cost savings in other areas. The whole drug addiction condition would be controlled.

It would never totally stop the vile dealers from operating as there will always be new prey. Its commendable that even through the police cuts there are still regular reports of drug dens being uncovered and the police ore very pro-active on this subject.

All of the above and proper sentencing for prolific offenders that refuse to admit or attempt to control their condition instead of the "liberal" approach we may just rid society of these cretins.

Cyber__Fug wrote:
That's too much like common sense though FF and there will be those that state that we shouldn't fund that particular treatment without looking at the cost savings in other areas. The whole drug addiction condition would be controlled.

It would never totally stop the vile dealers from operating as there will always be new prey. Its commendable that even through the police cuts there are still regular reports of drug dens being uncovered and the police ore very pro-active on this subject.

All of the above and proper sentencing for prolific offenders that refuse to admit or attempt to control their condition instead of the "liberal" approach we may just rid society of these cretins.

OK, see where you’re coming from.

Cost of treatment: minuscule - pence per day per addict.

Dealers: agreed, but they lose their new customers as soon as they have them hooked. Not a sensible career path.

Enforcement and sentencing: hasn’t worked, nor will it ever.

freefinker wrote:
.. a very simple change of emphasis in treating drug addiction as a medical problem (which it is), rather than a criminal matter, would see a huge reduction in this type of crime.

Advantages: -
1) Safe reliable supplies.
2) Medical supervision and help at hand.
3) Market taken away from dealers.
4) Organised crime syndicates suffer.
5) Huge savings to police, courts and prison services.
6) Huge reduction in burglaries, muggings etc.
7) With resulting huge decrease in crime victims and the distress it causes.
8) Gives Daily Mail one less thing to froth at the mouth over.

Disadvantages: -
I can't think of any.

Addicts are already on methadone. Most choose to top it up though!

SotonLad wrote:

freefinker wrote:
.. a very simple change of emphasis in treating drug addiction as a medical problem (which it is), rather than a criminal matter, would see a huge reduction in this type of crime.

Advantages: -
1) Safe reliable supplies.
2) Medical supervision and help at hand.
3) Market taken away from dealers.
4) Organised crime syndicates suffer.
5) Huge savings to police, courts and prison services.
6) Huge reduction in burglaries, muggings etc.
7) With resulting huge decrease in crime victims and the distress it causes.
8) Gives Daily Mail one less thing to froth at the mouth over.

Disadvantages: -
I can't think of any.

Addicts are already on methadone. Most choose to top it up though!

From what I have learnt methadone is not very effective as a substitute for heroin – thus the reason addicts ‘top up’ with the real thing, or avoid it altogether.

What’s more, for anyone actually trying to reduce or give up, the withdrawal symptoms of methadone are considerably more severe and last twice as long.

freefinker wrote:
.. a very simple change of emphasis in treating drug addiction as a medical problem (which it is), rather than a criminal matter, would see a huge reduction in this type of crime.

Advantages: -
1) Safe reliable supplies.
2) Medical supervision and help at hand.
3) Market taken away from dealers.
4) Organised crime syndicates suffer.
5) Huge savings to police, courts and prison services.
6) Huge reduction in burglaries, muggings etc.
7) With resulting huge decrease in crime victims and the distress it causes.
8) Gives Daily Mail one less thing to froth at the mouth over.

Disadvantages: -
I can't think of any.

can,t have that ,the queens poppy field profits in afghanistan would be at risk.

he wont change any excuse by looks of things one of his uncles are the same was sent to prison back in 2007 for a incident that happened on velmore estate were he ended up getting a hammer stuck in his head the family are wasters thats for sure

freefinker wrote:

Cyber__Fug wrote:
That's too much like common sense though FF and there will be those that state that we shouldn't fund that particular treatment without looking at the cost savings in other areas. The whole drug addiction condition would be controlled.

It would never totally stop the vile dealers from operating as there will always be new prey. Its commendable that even through the police cuts there are still regular reports of drug dens being uncovered and the police ore very pro-active on this subject.

All of the above and proper sentencing for prolific offenders that refuse to admit or attempt to control their condition instead of the "liberal" approach we may just rid society of these cretins.

OK, see where you’re coming from.

Cost of treatment: minuscule - pence per day per addict.

Dealers: agreed, but they lose their new customers as soon as they have them hooked. Not a sensible career path.

Enforcement and sentencing: hasn’t worked, nor will it ever.

Enforcement and sentencing may not do anything for the criminal but it works wonders for the law abiding public who have one less cretin to worry about.

'Shortly after,police caught him in a nearby garden with clothes matching the robber's.'
So did he steal the the robber's clothes too? Or did he just have a spare set...
Who writes this stuff?
Oh , a SENIOR reporter!

Too many excuses for cretins and wasters by the usual parade of left wing do-gooders. No effective sentencing by the courts - so it all means the law-abiding public continue to suffer.

One syringe, one dose, sorted! Bye bye ar.sehole

Torchie1 wrote:

freefinker wrote:

Cyber__Fug wrote:
That's too much like common sense though FF and there will be those that state that we shouldn't fund that particular treatment without looking at the cost savings in other areas. The whole drug addiction condition would be controlled.

It would never totally stop the vile dealers from operating as there will always be new prey. Its commendable that even through the police cuts there are still regular reports of drug dens being uncovered and the police ore very pro-active on this subject.

All of the above and proper sentencing for prolific offenders that refuse to admit or attempt to control their condition instead of the "liberal" approach we may just rid society of these cretins.

OK, see where you’re coming from.

Cost of treatment: minuscule - pence per day per addict.

Dealers: agreed, but they lose their new customers as soon as they have them hooked. Not a sensible career path.

Enforcement and sentencing: hasn’t worked, nor will it ever.

Enforcement and sentencing may not do anything for the criminal but it works wonders for the law abiding public who have one less cretin to worry about.

.. not sure that is so with the current rather lax sentencing policy.

But my point is there would be no need for them to be criminals if they didn't have to find the cost of a fix every day – for a drug that because of prohibition has become the mainstay of organised crime.

That's WHY we have the crime waves typified by this individual. The fix would cost us just pence if the state provided. Not providing the fix means this type of crime wave will continue to be a regular feature in society and the Echo columns.

And think of the victims of this crime wave. Why should we continue to cause them misery for the sake of a few pence?

Rockstone wrote:
'Shortly after,police caught him in a nearby garden with clothes matching the robber's.'
So did he steal the the robber's clothes too? Or did he just have a spare set...
Who writes this stuff?
Oh , a SENIOR reporter!

You read too much into things you tw*t
If you don't like the DE don't come on here then - or are you addicted to it ?

i hope he gets his **** broke into in there the low life scum!!

these lower orders should just be put down.

freefinker wrote:
.. a very simple change of emphasis in treating drug addiction as a medical problem (which it is), rather than a criminal matter, would see a huge reduction in this type of crime.

Advantages: -
1) Safe reliable supplies.
2) Medical supervision and help at hand.
3) Market taken away from dealers.
4) Organised crime syndicates suffer.
5) Huge savings to police, courts and prison services.
6) Huge reduction in burglaries, muggings etc.
7) With resulting huge decrease in crime victims and the distress it causes.
8) Gives Daily Mail one less thing to froth at the mouth over.

Disadvantages: -
I can't think of any.

Here we go

Let's worry about the perpatrator, not the victim of the crime. Lets reward them and help them and completely disregard those that have actually suffered in the scenario.
Don't know if you read the story here the other day about the old gent who killed himself after being burgled... very sad
Reading any of the court cases reported you will quickly see that mitigating circumstances are given. Every defendant has a sorry little background story to tell without exception.!!!
When you look for reasons, you seek to excuse, after 134 burglaries and warnings there are no excuses.
Some people may be happy to 'help' these low-lifes. I am not and happy to see them punished

huckit P wrote:
Too many excuses for cretins and wasters by the usual parade of left wing do-gooders. No effective sentencing by the courts - so it all means the law-abiding public continue to suffer.

The left wing do-gooders are trying to deal with the right wing mess that they created.
Prohibition Laws have never worked, it just creates criminal gangs like the Mafia

southy wrote:

huckit P wrote:
Too many excuses for cretins and wasters by the usual parade of left wing do-gooders. No effective sentencing by the courts - so it all means the law-abiding public continue to suffer.

The left wing do-gooders are trying to deal with the right wing mess that they created.
Prohibition Laws have never worked, it just creates criminal gangs like the Mafia

Yeah, here here!
Let's get Heroin on sale at Tesco's as soon as possible eh?



Really?????????

st1halo wrote:

freefinker wrote:
.. a very simple change of emphasis in treating drug addiction as a medical problem (which it is), rather than a criminal matter, would see a huge reduction in this type of crime.

Advantages: -
1) Safe reliable supplies.
2) Medical supervision and help at hand.
3) Market taken away from dealers.
4) Organised crime syndicates suffer.
5) Huge savings to police, courts and prison services.
6) Huge reduction in burglaries, muggings etc.
7) With resulting huge decrease in crime victims and the distress it causes.
8) Gives Daily Mail one less thing to froth at the mouth over.

Disadvantages: -
I can't think of any.

Here we go

Let's worry about the perpatrator, not the victim of the crime. Lets reward them and help them and completely disregard those that have actually suffered in the scenario.
Don't know if you read the story here the other day about the old gent who killed himself after being burgled... very sad
Reading any of the court cases reported you will quickly see that mitigating circumstances are given. Every defendant has a sorry little background story to tell without exception.!!!
When you look for reasons, you seek to excuse, after 134 burglaries and warnings there are no excuses.
Some people may be happy to 'help' these low-lifes. I am not and happy to see them punished

Did I in ANY way indicate that we should "worry about the perpatrator, not the victim of the crime"?

He deserves prison for what he's done.

If you had actually taken in what I was saying you would have realised one of my main concerns is to reduce the suffering of victims.

Surely if we can prevent the crime and victim suffering that is a far better solution all round – and it helps the addict.

southy wrote:

huckit P wrote:
Too many excuses for cretins and wasters by the usual parade of left wing do-gooders. No effective sentencing by the courts - so it all means the law-abiding public continue to suffer.

The left wing do-gooders are trying to deal with the right wing mess that they created.
Prohibition Laws have never worked, it just creates criminal gangs like the Mafia

.. do leave it out southy. It's nothing to do with left and right. Left wing governments are just as bad at treating addiction as a criminal matter rather than a medical problem.

southy wrote:

huckit P wrote:
Too many excuses for cretins and wasters by the usual parade of left wing do-gooders. No effective sentencing by the courts - so it all means the law-abiding public continue to suffer.

The left wing do-gooders are trying to deal with the right wing mess that they created.
Prohibition Laws have never worked, it just creates criminal gangs like the Mafia

Southy, have you trod in something? There's a strong smell of **** coming from your direction, again.

As st1halo pointed out there appears to be more sympathy for the perpetrator than the victim. It is high time this was reversed, so that victims of crime have an effective and worthwhile support system specifically aimed at helping them through whatever trauma they are suffering.
As for the perpetrators - they didn't have to resort to a life of crime and can leave it at any time they choose.
Let's save our sympathy for the agrieved rather than the agressor.
And who mentioned prohibition anyway? Maybe you can't spell probation because that certainly doesn't work!

sick of all the pandering to scumbags, they know what their doing and don't care about anyone, total selfish wasters.
rather have my tax money spent on keeping them locked up than trying to help sh@t like him.

rich the stitch wrote:

southy wrote:

huckit P wrote:
Too many excuses for cretins and wasters by the usual parade of left wing do-gooders. No effective sentencing by the courts - so it all means the law-abiding public continue to suffer.

The left wing do-gooders are trying to deal with the right wing mess that they created.
Prohibition Laws have never worked, it just creates criminal gangs like the Mafia

Southy, have you trod in something? There's a strong smell of **** coming from your direction, again.

Yes sorry rich i step on you head

freefinker wrote:

st1halo wrote:

freefinker wrote:
.. a very simple change of emphasis in treating drug addiction as a medical problem (which it is), rather than a criminal matter, would see a huge reduction in this type of crime.

Advantages: -
1) Safe reliable supplies.
2) Medical supervision and help at hand.
3) Market taken away from dealers.
4) Organised crime syndicates suffer.
5) Huge savings to police, courts and prison services.
6) Huge reduction in burglaries, muggings etc.
7) With resulting huge decrease in crime victims and the distress it causes.
8) Gives Daily Mail one less thing to froth at the mouth over.

Disadvantages: -
I can't think of any.

Here we go

Let's worry about the perpatrator, not the victim of the crime. Lets reward them and help them and completely disregard those that have actually suffered in the scenario.
Don't know if you read the story here the other day about the old gent who killed himself after being burgled... very sad
Reading any of the court cases reported you will quickly see that mitigating circumstances are given. Every defendant has a sorry little background story to tell without exception.!!!
When you look for reasons, you seek to excuse, after 134 burglaries and warnings there are no excuses.
Some people may be happy to 'help' these low-lifes. I am not and happy to see them punished

Did I in ANY way indicate that we should "worry about the perpatrator, not the victim of the crime"?

He deserves prison for what he's done.

If you had actually taken in what I was saying you would have realised one of my main concerns is to reduce the suffering of victims.

Surely if we can prevent the crime and victim suffering that is a far better solution all round – and it helps the addict.

With respect, your whole post indicates your concern for the perpetrator(s) as you identify them as having medical problems and then go on to list the advantages of helping the offender(s)
There is no real independent evidence to suggest that helping them will make any difference to crime figures.
For me, the very simple change of emphasis you mention should be this.... We cannot and have never been able to prevent crime, we can only deter people from committing it.
We all police ourselves at the end of the day!Once recognised, perhaps everyone will stop their pandering and tough sentencing will be meted out. 'In mitigation' is a section of the court process I would rule out unless there were extra-ordinary circumstances. i.e. self defence,fear for life etc

st1halo wrote:

freefinker wrote:

st1halo wrote:

freefinker wrote:
.. a very simple change of emphasis in treating drug addiction as a medical problem (which it is), rather than a criminal matter, would see a huge reduction in this type of crime.

Advantages: -
1) Safe reliable supplies.
2) Medical supervision and help at hand.
3) Market taken away from dealers.
4) Organised crime syndicates suffer.
5) Huge savings to police, courts and prison services.
6) Huge reduction in burglaries, muggings etc.
7) With resulting huge decrease in crime victims and the distress it causes.
8) Gives Daily Mail one less thing to froth at the mouth over.

Disadvantages: -
I can't think of any.

Here we go

Let's worry about the perpatrator, not the victim of the crime. Lets reward them and help them and completely disregard those that have actually suffered in the scenario.
Don't know if you read the story here the other day about the old gent who killed himself after being burgled... very sad
Reading any of the court cases reported you will quickly see that mitigating circumstances are given. Every defendant has a sorry little background story to tell without exception.!!!
When you look for reasons, you seek to excuse, after 134 burglaries and warnings there are no excuses.
Some people may be happy to 'help' these low-lifes. I am not and happy to see them punished

Did I in ANY way indicate that we should "worry about the perpatrator, not the victim of the crime"?

He deserves prison for what he's done.

If you had actually taken in what I was saying you would have realised one of my main concerns is to reduce the suffering of victims.

Surely if we can prevent the crime and victim suffering that is a far better solution all round – and it helps the addict.

With respect, your whole post indicates your concern for the perpetrator(s) as you identify them as having medical problems and then go on to list the advantages of helping the offender(s)
There is no real independent evidence to suggest that helping them will make any difference to crime figures.
For me, the very simple change of emphasis you mention should be this.... We cannot and have never been able to prevent crime, we can only deter people from committing it.
We all police ourselves at the end of the day!Once recognised, perhaps everyone will stop their pandering and tough sentencing will be meted out. 'In mitigation' is a section of the court process I would rule out unless there were extra-ordinary circumstances. i.e. self defence,fear for life etc

.. addiction IS a medical condition, full stop.

You start from there. Treat it as such and the addicts DON'T do the crime = no victims = money not wasted by police, courts and prisons.

And if you actually think 'prison works' then you are not looking at the evidence. It doesn't. Not only is there plenty of smack inside, so no cure, but the reoffending rates in the UK are absolutely horrific.

The trouble with your Daily Mail type attitudes is you just don't look at the evidence. And it is fear of the right wing press that prevents politicians from making sensible drug legislation.

If you want stories such as this to run for yet another 30 years then the current system almost guarantees it.

More victims, more crime, at ever greater public expense. More organised crime, more drug pushers. Seems to be exactly what you want to continue.

As soon as I saw this report I knew there would be the usual cretins on this site calling for the legalisation of this poisonous rubbish. Due to the effect that even the so called soft drug cannabis has on the mental capabilities of some users you would need to legalise murder as well in order to see any financial benefit. It's about time we actually declared war on the scum dealers and started to exterminate trhem.

Inform Al wrote:
As soon as I saw this report I knew there would be the usual cretins on this site calling for the legalisation of this poisonous rubbish. Due to the effect that even the so called soft drug cannabis has on the mental capabilities of some users you would need to legalise murder as well in order to see any financial benefit. It's about time we actually declared war on the scum dealers and started to exterminate trhem.

.. you're not very informed, are you Al?

You make the Daily Mail look like a reasonable and factual liberal rag.

freefinker wrote:

st1halo wrote:

freefinker wrote:

st1halo wrote:

freefinker wrote:
.. a very simple change of emphasis in treating drug addiction as a medical problem (which it is), rather than a criminal matter, would see a huge reduction in this type of crime.

Advantages: -
1) Safe reliable supplies.
2) Medical supervision and help at hand.
3) Market taken away from dealers.
4) Organised crime syndicates suffer.
5) Huge savings to police, courts and prison services.
6) Huge reduction in burglaries, muggings etc.
7) With resulting huge decrease in crime victims and the distress it causes.
8) Gives Daily Mail one less thing to froth at the mouth over.

Disadvantages: -
I can't think of any.

Here we go

Let's worry about the perpatrator, not the victim of the crime. Lets reward them and help them and completely disregard those that have actually suffered in the scenario.
Don't know if you read the story here the other day about the old gent who killed himself after being burgled... very sad
Reading any of the court cases reported you will quickly see that mitigating circumstances are given. Every defendant has a sorry little background story to tell without exception.!!!
When you look for reasons, you seek to excuse, after 134 burglaries and warnings there are no excuses.
Some people may be happy to 'help' these low-lifes. I am not and happy to see them punished

Did I in ANY way indicate that we should "worry about the perpatrator, not the victim of the crime"?

He deserves prison for what he's done.

If you had actually taken in what I was saying you would have realised one of my main concerns is to reduce the suffering of victims.

Surely if we can prevent the crime and victim suffering that is a far better solution all round – and it helps the addict.

With respect, your whole post indicates your concern for the perpetrator(s) as you identify them as having medical problems and then go on to list the advantages of helping the offender(s)
There is no real independent evidence to suggest that helping them will make any difference to crime figures.
For me, the very simple change of emphasis you mention should be this.... We cannot and have never been able to prevent crime, we can only deter people from committing it.
We all police ourselves at the end of the day!Once recognised, perhaps everyone will stop their pandering and tough sentencing will be meted out. 'In mitigation' is a section of the court process I would rule out unless there were extra-ordinary circumstances. i.e. self defence,fear for life etc

.. addiction IS a medical condition, full stop.

You start from there. Treat it as such and the addicts DON'T do the crime = no victims = money not wasted by police, courts and prisons.

And if you actually think 'prison works' then you are not looking at the evidence. It doesn't. Not only is there plenty of smack inside, so no cure, but the reoffending rates in the UK are absolutely horrific.

The trouble with your Daily Mail type attitudes is you just don't look at the evidence. And it is fear of the right wing press that prevents politicians from making sensible drug legislation.

If you want stories such as this to run for yet another 30 years then the current system almost guarantees it.

More victims, more crime, at ever greater public expense. More organised crime, more drug pushers. Seems to be exactly what you want to continue.

Freefinker, mainly agree with your posts, but not this one. IMO the reason prison does not work is a) the sentence is too lenient b) prison is no deterant any more. As much help and support you give some people they will never change.....but they will carry on as all they get is a slap on the wrist and given some rehab, which does not seem to work. I don't know what the answer is, but people should be punished for comitting a crime. We are too soft.

southy wrote:

rich the stitch wrote:

southy wrote:

huckit P wrote:
Too many excuses for cretins and wasters by the usual parade of left wing do-gooders. No effective sentencing by the courts - so it all means the law-abiding public continue to suffer.

The left wing do-gooders are trying to deal with the right wing mess that they created.
Prohibition Laws have never worked, it just creates criminal gangs like the Mafia

Southy, have you trod in something? There's a strong smell of **** coming from your direction, again.

Yes sorry rich i step on you head

Did you write that southy? Or was it a 5 year old? Considering you claim to represent a political party your spelling/ grammar is appalling. Your an embarrassment.

freefinker wrote:
.. a very simple change of emphasis in treating drug addiction as a medical problem (which it is), rather than a criminal matter, would see a huge reduction in this type of crime.

Advantages: -
1) Safe reliable supplies.
2) Medical supervision and help at hand.
3) Market taken away from dealers.
4) Organised crime syndicates suffer.
5) Huge savings to police, courts and prison services.
6) Huge reduction in burglaries, muggings etc.
7) With resulting huge decrease in crime victims and the distress it causes.
8) Gives Daily Mail one less thing to froth at the mouth over.

Disadvantages: -
I can't think of any.

A bullet or lethal injection would be far quicker & cheaper though!. ;-)

rich the stitch wrote:

freefinker wrote:

st1halo wrote:

freefinker wrote:

st1halo wrote:

freefinker wrote:
.. a very simple change of emphasis in treating drug addiction as a medical problem (which it is), rather than a criminal matter, would see a huge reduction in this type of crime.

Advantages: -
1) Safe reliable supplies.
2) Medical supervision and help at hand.
3) Market taken away from dealers.
4) Organised crime syndicates suffer.
5) Huge savings to police, courts and prison services.
6) Huge reduction in burglaries, muggings etc.
7) With resulting huge decrease in crime victims and the distress it causes.
8) Gives Daily Mail one less thing to froth at the mouth over.

Disadvantages: -
I can't think of any.

Here we go

Let's worry about the perpatrator, not the victim of the crime. Lets reward them and help them and completely disregard those that have actually suffered in the scenario.
Don't know if you read the story here the other day about the old gent who killed himself after being burgled... very sad
Reading any of the court cases reported you will quickly see that mitigating circumstances are given. Every defendant has a sorry little background story to tell without exception.!!!
When you look for reasons, you seek to excuse, after 134 burglaries and warnings there are no excuses.
Some people may be happy to 'help' these low-lifes. I am not and happy to see them punished

Did I in ANY way indicate that we should "worry about the perpatrator, not the victim of the crime"?

He deserves prison for what he's done.

If you had actually taken in what I was saying you would have realised one of my main concerns is to reduce the suffering of victims.

Surely if we can prevent the crime and victim suffering that is a far better solution all round – and it helps the addict.

With respect, your whole post indicates your concern for the perpetrator(s) as you identify them as having medical problems and then go on to list the advantages of helping the offender(s)
There is no real independent evidence to suggest that helping them will make any difference to crime figures.
For me, the very simple change of emphasis you mention should be this.... We cannot and have never been able to prevent crime, we can only deter people from committing it.
We all police ourselves at the end of the day!Once recognised, perhaps everyone will stop their pandering and tough sentencing will be meted out. 'In mitigation' is a section of the court process I would rule out unless there were extra-ordinary circumstances. i.e. self defence,fear for life etc

.. addiction IS a medical condition, full stop.

You start from there. Treat it as such and the addicts DON'T do the crime = no victims = money not wasted by police, courts and prisons.

And if you actually think 'prison works' then you are not looking at the evidence. It doesn't. Not only is there plenty of smack inside, so no cure, but the reoffending rates in the UK are absolutely horrific.

The trouble with your Daily Mail type attitudes is you just don't look at the evidence. And it is fear of the right wing press that prevents politicians from making sensible drug legislation.

If you want stories such as this to run for yet another 30 years then the current system almost guarantees it.

More victims, more crime, at ever greater public expense. More organised crime, more drug pushers. Seems to be exactly what you want to continue.

Freefinker, mainly agree with your posts, but not this one. IMO the reason prison does not work is a) the sentence is too lenient b) prison is no deterant any more. As much help and support you give some people they will never change.....but they will carry on as all they get is a slap on the wrist and given some rehab, which does not seem to work. I don't know what the answer is, but people should be punished for comitting a crime. We are too soft.

.. yea, yea, yea, but.

You’re on about prison and crime - and yea, this guy deserves time, agreed.

I'm on about preventing future crime; and the cost and misery that goes with it.

Irrespective of the reasons they become addicts, they DO now have a medical condition that needs medical treatment. Address that problem medically and almost all the crime disappears. Win, win.

There are, of course several, other medical conditions that are, to at least some degree, self-inflicted. STD's including AIDS, own fault motor accidents, pier diving, skiing, mountaineering, etc. etc. Do we treat these medically? Yes we do, despite the foolishness sometimes displayed. Why oh why can’t we treat addiction in the same way. It’s a medical problem that BECOMES a criminal problem because we refuse to treat it medically.

rich the stitch wrote:

southy wrote:

rich the stitch wrote:

southy wrote:

huckit P wrote:
Too many excuses for cretins and wasters by the usual parade of left wing do-gooders. No effective sentencing by the courts - so it all means the law-abiding public continue to suffer.

The left wing do-gooders are trying to deal with the right wing mess that they created.
Prohibition Laws have never worked, it just creates criminal gangs like the Mafia

Southy, have you trod in something? There's a strong smell of **** coming from your direction, again.

Yes sorry rich i step on you head

Did you write that southy? Or was it a 5 year old? Considering you claim to represent a political party your spelling/ grammar is appalling. Your an embarrassment.

*you're!

andysaints007 wrote:

Rockstone wrote:
'Shortly after,police caught him in a nearby garden with clothes matching the robber's.'
So did he steal the the robber's clothes too? Or did he just have a spare set...
Who writes this stuff?
Oh , a SENIOR reporter!

You read too much into things you tw*t
If you don't like the DE don't come on here then - or are you addicted to it ?

I only come on here to find some amusement from the inane drivel that's posted on here by by dick heads like you - who think it's very brave to call someone a tw*t from behind a computer screen.
Go on now, run and tell mummy what I said.

If junkies choose, there's loads of free help and assistance to cure them of their addiction.
If they don't choose this path, and go down the criminal route, then they should feel the full force of the law.
Those that think the solution would be to sell drugs on the High Street are sorely mistaken. A pusher is a pusher, makes no difference whether they but it from the Chemist, or the scumbag dealer.
The answer is to seriously crack down on everyone in the drug chain. Hammer the small-time dealers and in time you'll be gifted the ones at the top. Minimum sentence of 10 year and zero tolerance, no matter how concerned they are about their ill relatives!

southy wrote:

huckit P wrote:
Too many excuses for cretins and wasters by the usual parade of left wing do-gooders. No effective sentencing by the courts - so it all means the law-abiding public continue to suffer.

The left wing do-gooders are trying to deal with the right wing mess that they created.
Prohibition Laws have never worked, it just creates criminal gangs like the Mafia

Another moronic statementfrom the king of **** !!! I bet the rest of the TUSC memebers cringe when they read your ramblings on here.

Safehands wrote:
If junkies choose, there's loads of free help and assistance to cure them of their addiction.
If they don't choose this path, and go down the criminal route, then they should feel the full force of the law.
Those that think the solution would be to sell drugs on the High Street are sorely mistaken. A pusher is a pusher, makes no difference whether they but it from the Chemist, or the scumbag dealer.
The answer is to seriously crack down on everyone in the drug chain. Hammer the small-time dealers and in time you'll be gifted the ones at the top. Minimum sentence of 10 year and zero tolerance, no matter how concerned they are about their ill relatives!

.. yea, yea - wage war on drugs, like you say.

So why do you think after 50 or 60 years of doing just that we still have a problem?

It hasn't worked, it never will work. You can get as tough as you like - but the result will be the same.

Inform Al says...
6:54pm Sat 24 Nov 12

As soon as I saw this report I knew there would be the usual cretins on this site calling for the legalisation of this poisonous rubbish. Due to the effect that even the so called soft drug cannabis has on the mental capabilities of some users you would need to legalise murder as well in order to see any financial benefit. It's about time we actually declared war on the scum dealers and started to exterminate trhem.”

Your argumant againast legalistaion and control is that we would have to inherently legalise murder(which you seem to be against). Then advocate extermination of individuals.

Simply saying no for the sake of no and not being able to see a compromise. Sometimes we all should be able to budge from our beliefs however rightous they seem InformAl.

You sir are the exact embodiment of the flawed "anti" mentality.

As far as I can see, there are two options.

1. Legalise and control, most points ourlined by freefinker.

2. Implement much, much severe punisment.(this would involve scraping the human rights act, and pave the way to a totalitarian regieme)

Arguably, point two might be a good idea because the common man has been so brainwashed he has lost the ability to make the right decisions.

Bottom line in some cases, you cannot MAKE some feel remorse. Some people are just empty and evil.