Filth

[crystal ball]

Maybe your level of comprehension is below the standard bar.
What Ms Dick said is very clear: she proposed that whoever assaults police officers a SECOND TIME, should be jailed.
No two ways to interpret this, unless you're a communist and a do-gooder.
The fact that Mr Abbott has not been to court, doesn't justify the fact that he's free to roam our streets and assault more people.
Anyone who beats people should remain in custody until tried.
A dangerous individual who assaults public servants should not be let free until acquitted or serving his sentence.
Then as someone always sides with criminals, I rest my case and hope that one day they'll become the victims of the same criminals they wanted free.

You said this "Then remember what Cressida Dick said:
It's ok to assault police officers once, we will consider jail the second time you do it"

she never, you interpreted it from her original statement, that is totally different

An individual who assaults anyone, never mind public servants should be dealt with, but as Notch7 says not feasible to lock every yob up until trial, how much more tax would you pay to build thousands of short stay cells and staff them?

 

[johnny2007]

Don't build any.
Use the ones already there and cram 12 beds in each one.
Then the criminals would think twice before punching anyone.

 

[crystal ball]

Don't build any.
Use the ones already there and cram 12 beds in each one.
Then the criminals would think twice before punching anyone.

I think you live in a fantasy world

 

[JP_]

The fact that Mr Abbott has not been to court, doesn't justify the fact that he's free to roam our streets and assault more people.
Anyone who beats people should remain in custody until tried.

That is no longer how the police and CPS works. Tory cuts have decimated the entire service.
There's a guy round my way who has assaulted people, threatened to rape children and women, threatened to stab people, deals drugs etc. Police arrested him 4 or 5 times. He went to court, all charges dropped. Back on the streets again. Until he actually does something he is a free man.

Anyway, while not defending Abbott, we don't really know what happened, do we? The police probably didn't realise who he was. It is unlikely he approached the building, saw 2 police officers, and decided to bite one on the thumb while spitting at the other. That really makes no sense - a police officer would not let somebody bite their thumb, it could only happen if their hand was already on their face for some reason. He was probably being restrained, and until we know why the police decided to restrain a black guy outside the government building an hour after a terrorist attack in another part of London, there is little point further discussing it.

It all sounds a bit dodgy though. I mean, even if you wanted to bite a police officer's thumb, how would you manage it? Try biting somebody's thumb and see what happens, i bet they just move their hand out the way!

 

[Notch7]

I think you live in a fantasy world

It is easy to see why the Tories talking about tougher sentencing appeals to a fair proportion of the electorate.

There is plenty of evidence that proves tougher sentencing is no deterrent to crime, but kneejerk reactions always trump facts.

 

[JP_]

Anything the Tories say is a joke. How can they stand there and say they will be tougher on crime, after sacking 10,000 polices officers, and cutting spending on prisons, CPS, and other services around remand, rehabilitation and the like?

The problems are caused by the tories being in power for 10 years. They just announced that in the next budget they will cut tax.How are they going to pay for all these improvements AND cut tax? Magic money tree? No, they are just lying and gullible fools keep believing it.

 

[johnny2007]

I think you live in a fantasy world

Probably.
A world where people respect others and the few who don't are punished for it.
I understand that some do not agree with my view, they prefer a world in which anyone can do whatever they want disregarding the basic rules of humanity.

 

[Lower]

It is easy to see why the Tories talking about tougher sentencing appeals to a fair proportion of the electorate.

There is plenty of evidence that proves tougher sentencing is no deterrent to crime, but kneejerk reactions always trump facts.

and there is plenty of evidence that tougher sentences and keeping criminals in prison for longer reduces crime because the criminals can't commit more crimes when they are already in prison.

Prison isn't just about deterrence. Its also about keeping the public safe from the actions of criminals by keeping the criminals locked up.

 

[JP_]

A world where people respect others and the few who don't are punished for it.

Does this include police officers who approach a man outside a government building and shove a hand in his face, just because he's black?

 

[crystal ball]

So you are proposing long sentences for petty crime such as shoplifting

 

[JP_]

Police don't respond to reports of shoplifting, so that is an entirely theoretical question!

 

[Notch7]

and there is plenty of evidence that tougher sentences and keeping criminals in prison for longer reduces crime because the criminals can't commit more crimes when they are already in prison.

Prison isn't just about deterrence. Its also about keeping the public safe from the actions of criminals by keeping the criminals locked up.

There is not plenty of evidence.

Keeping the public safe is separate issue to longer sentences acting as a deterrent.
In any case, trial is a 6month wait and 12months for crown court....if Tories cared about keeping criminal off the streets they would do something about it.

Johnsons 'tougher sentences' is mere soundbite politicical rhetoric designed to appeal to the right wing.

If the Tories cared about crime, justice and the prison service they wouldnt have wrecked them with cuts......longer sentences is just a deflection from that.

 

[crystal ball]

Police don't respond to reports of shoplifting, so that is an entirely theoretical question!

How do shoplifters end up in front of the magistrates then?

 

[ellal]

My post was primarily about nurture Vs Nature and not Labour Vs. Tory but hey, you go ahead and try to make excuses for Abacus's son.

No, you specifically said it was 'nurture' in your post and mentioned nothing about nature.

And you specifically said Labour.
(and now add a stupid reference to said labour parliamentary candidate)

So just to remind you...

£10k a year private school for a Labour MP's son and this is how he turns out. Nurture didn’t work here, did it?

So you now try and backtrack...

Not unsurprising of course, as you appear to hold the forum record on that particular movement!

And your next move no doubt will be to talk about the topic getting locked.

 

[Lower]

There is not plenty of evidence.

Keeping the public safe is separate issue to longer sentences acting as a deterrent.
In any case, trial is a 6month wait and 12months for crown court....if Tories cared about keeping criminal off the streets they would do something about it.

Johnsons 'tougher sentences' is mere soundbite politicical rhetoric designed to appeal to the right wing.

If the Tories cared about crime, justice and the prison service they wouldnt have wrecked them with cuts......longer sentences is just a deflection from that.

Back round the circle we go again....

There had to be cuts because the deficit had to come down. Some cuts went too far and now that the economy is performing better we can afford to spend more money on things like crime, justice and the prison service again.

Its not about Tories not caring, its about spending to our means.

Keeping people safe and deterrence are two sides of the same coin. There may be evidence that says harsher sentences don't deter crime, but there is also evidence that says the they do. However, the likelihood of whether you'll get away with a crime and not get prosecuted also has a strong deterrence factor.