Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.

Incident in Greenwich

13468913

Comments

  • se9addick said:
    My nephew was threatened with a knife back in August last year in Paddock Wood, apparently it has gone to court 3 times but each time it has been delayed. As a consequence my nephew quit his job in the October and rarely leaves the house. The bloke who did it, broad daylight and multiple witnesses, is still roaming the streets around his area. Absolutely pitiful state for our country to be in
    Why don’t you track him down and punch his f’ing lights out?
    Because he’ll probably get stabbed!
    Not if you give him no chance to use a knife......there’s such a thing as a sucker punch when needed, he wouldn’t see it coming.
    Do you really think people like that walk around alone?
  • edited June 15
    se9addick said:
    My nephew was threatened with a knife back in August last year in Paddock Wood, apparently it has gone to court 3 times but each time it has been delayed. As a consequence my nephew quit his job in the October and rarely leaves the house. The bloke who did it, broad daylight and multiple witnesses, is still roaming the streets around his area. Absolutely pitiful state for our country to be in
    Why don’t you track him down and punch his f’ing lights out?
    Because he’ll probably get stabbed!
    Not if you give him no chance to use a knife......there’s such a thing as a sucker punch when needed, he wouldn’t see it coming.
    Do you really think people like that walk around alone?
    Sometimes they do sometimes they don't.....wait till they don’t, very easy actually.
    Anyway, I really shouldn’t be talking like this......as it’s all hypothetical.
  • I know what the answer is, but it wouldn't go down well on here with all the lefty do gooders, so I'll keep it to myself.
    No you don’t know the answer. 
    I do.
  • I know what the answer is, but it wouldn't go down well on here with all the lefty do gooders, so I'll keep it to myself.
    No you don’t know the answer. 
    I do.
    Perhaps you should tell the Home Secretary, The Mayor of London and Commissioner of The Metropolitan Police then 
  • stonemuse said:
    My nephew was threatened with a knife back in August last year in Paddock Wood, apparently it has gone to court 3 times but each time it has been delayed. As a consequence my nephew quit his job in the October and rarely leaves the house. The bloke who did it, broad daylight and multiple witnesses, is still roaming the streets around his area. Absolutely pitiful state for our country to be in
    Just reading the Secret Barrister book, he/she spills the beans on our criminal justice system and explains why so many cases keep getting delayed like this. One of those books everyone needs to read - bit of an eye opener
    Yup, definitely worth reading ... it’s a revelation for things like the above. 
    I would like to read it but not sure I'd just be more annoyed than before. This was written a few years ago but a good read
  • I know what the answer is, but it wouldn't go down well on here with all the lefty do gooders, so I'll keep it to myself.
    No you don’t know the answer. 
    I do.
    Perhaps you should tell the Home Secretary, The Mayor of London and Commissioner of The Metropolitan Police then 
    Sure they already know just haven't got the bollocks to implement it.
  • I know what the answer is, but it wouldn't go down well on here with all the lefty do gooders, so I'll keep it to myself.
    No you don’t know the answer. 
    I do.
    Perhaps you should tell the Home Secretary, The Mayor of London and Commissioner of The Metropolitan Police then 
    Sure they already know just haven't got the bollocks to implement it.
    Ok. I’ll bite. Enlighten us.
  • I know what the answer is, but it wouldn't go down well on here with all the lefty do gooders, so I'll keep it to myself.
    No you don’t know the answer. 
    I do.
    I know what the answer is, but it wouldn't go down well on here with all the lefty do gooders, so I'll keep it to myself.
    No you don’t know the answer. 
    I do.

    take a leaf from the Police force in Guatemala City's book. Back in the 1990s, Crime dropped by 90% after they adopted a shoot to kill policy against 'criminals' caught in the act or fleeing the scene of a crime .


    In Birmingham (UK), years ago, incidents of mugging were reduced to nil after two convicted muggers were given life sentences. On appeal, the sentences were drastically reduced. Very soon mugging was back to pre-controversy levels

    There ARE solutions ((:>)
  • Personally, I think tougher sentencing is an absolute must in terms of a short term deterrent.  I understand that the problems are rooted deeper due to societal issues, race, poverty and other huge problems, but to stem the number of lives being lost, whilst (if we ever), get to grips with this problem via a long term strategy, we need harder short term sentencing.  This is just becoming the norm now.  It doesn’t look like this is high on the priorities of any government as a long term goal, so the very least we can do is come down hard on any scumbag that takes a life through violence and knives 
  • Sponsored links:


  • cabbles said:
    Personally, I think tougher sentencing is an absolute must in terms of a short term deterrent.  I understand that the problems are rooted deeper due to societal issues, race, poverty and other huge problems, but to stem the number of lives being lost, whilst (if we ever), get to grips with this problem via a long term strategy, we need harder short term sentencing.  This is just becoming the norm now.  It doesn’t look like this is high on the priorities of any government as a long term goal, so the very least we can do is come down hard on any scumbag that takes a life through violence and knives 
    Don’t limit sentences to just those who kill. A minimum of 5 years for just carrying a knife might act as a deterrent.
  • cabbles said:
    Personally, I think tougher sentencing is an absolute must in terms of a short term deterrent.  I understand that the problems are rooted deeper due to societal issues, race, poverty and other huge problems, but to stem the number of lives being lost, whilst (if we ever), get to grips with this problem via a long term strategy, we need harder short term sentencing.  This is just becoming the norm now.  It doesn’t look like this is high on the priorities of any government as a long term goal, so the very least we can do is come down hard on any scumbag that takes a life through violence and knives 
    Don’t limit sentences to just those who kill. A minimum of 5 years for just carrying a knife might act as a deterrent.
    Agree 100% mate.  I know our prisons are overcrowded and underfunded, and I know it’s a hot potato for the politicians given it’s going to take taxpayer money to support it, but I for one would be open to a government asking me to pay more to introduce tougher sentencing as a deterrent to this sort of thing.  I can’t see any other way at the moment.  It’s got to be addressed.  Any one of us could be a potential victim
  • cabbles said:
    Personally, I think tougher sentencing is an absolute must in terms of a short term deterrent.  I understand that the problems are rooted deeper due to societal issues, race, poverty and other huge problems, but to stem the number of lives being lost, whilst (if we ever), get to grips with this problem via a long term strategy, we need harder short term sentencing.  This is just becoming the norm now.  It doesn’t look like this is high on the priorities of any government as a long term goal, so the very least we can do is come down hard on any scumbag that takes a life through violence and knives 
    @cabbles Someone was murdered yesterday in South London, hence this thread being bumped.  What "tougher sentencing" do you think the perpetrator should get, if (hopefully when) caught, charged, tried and convicted?  

    I think there are three types of people that post on threads like this.  Those that think meting out "natural justice" is a good thing (spoiler: it isn't).  Those that repeat tropes like "tougher sentencing".  And those that think carefully about what they post.  I am certain that you naturally belong in that latter group.  So I am really surprised that you post about "tougher sentencing".  The perpetrator, if convicted, will serve a life sentence. 
  • The police definitely require more power/force. 

    In Portugal last week you knew that if you acted up, you’d get a baton to the swede. If it was our police, there’s absolutely no doubt people would have taken more liberties. There has to be that slight element of fear.
  • It’s complex. Yes to more police, tougher sentences, investment in youth projects. All short term sticking plasters. Long term, housing, education, prison reform, family issues and the list goes on. 

    Shoot to kill policies are simply a ridiculous suggestion.
    Shoot to kill isn’t something I would abdicate, even though the initial reaction in me is always that the perpetrators are scum and oxygen thieves.  This one really plays with my left leaning principles Shooters :-(
  • Chizz said:
    cabbles said:
    Personally, I think tougher sentencing is an absolute must in terms of a short term deterrent.  I understand that the problems are rooted deeper due to societal issues, race, poverty and other huge problems, but to stem the number of lives being lost, whilst (if we ever), get to grips with this problem via a long term strategy, we need harder short term sentencing.  This is just becoming the norm now.  It doesn’t look like this is high on the priorities of any government as a long term goal, so the very least we can do is come down hard on any scumbag that takes a life through violence and knives 
    @cabbles Someone was murdered yesterday in South London, hence this thread being bumped.  What "tougher sentencing" do you think the perpetrator should get, if (hopefully when) caught, charged, tried and convicted?  

    I think there are three types of people that post on threads like this.  Those that think meting out "natural justice" is a good thing (spoiler: it isn't).  Those that repeat tropes like "tougher sentencing".  And those that think carefully about what they post.  I am certain that you naturally belong in that latter group.  So I am really surprised that you post about "tougher sentencing".  The perpetrator, if convicted, will serve a life sentence. 
    Exactly. A life sentence that does not mean you spend the rest of your life in prison.
  • The police definitely require more power/force. 

    In Portugal last week you knew that if you acted up, you’d get a baton to the swede. If it was our police, there’s absolutely no doubt people would have taken more liberties. There has to be that slight element of fear.
    I know that you and I are unlikely to agree on how best to deal with this situation, so it's difficult for me to ask this question in a way that's not inflammatory.  But, I would genuinely like to know what you think about this.  What additional power or force should the police have been allowed to deploy that would have prevented yesterday's murder?  

    I can't imagine what additional authority the police could have had which would have stopped the victim being shot yesterday.  But if there is something, I would really like to know, because (within reason) it would absolutely get my support.  

    What additional police power would have prevented yesterday's crime? 
  • Chizz said:
    cabbles said:
    Personally, I think tougher sentencing is an absolute must in terms of a short term deterrent.  I understand that the problems are rooted deeper due to societal issues, race, poverty and other huge problems, but to stem the number of lives being lost, whilst (if we ever), get to grips with this problem via a long term strategy, we need harder short term sentencing.  This is just becoming the norm now.  It doesn’t look like this is high on the priorities of any government as a long term goal, so the very least we can do is come down hard on any scumbag that takes a life through violence and knives 
    @cabbles Someone was murdered yesterday in South London, hence this thread being bumped.  What "tougher sentencing" do you think the perpetrator should get, if (hopefully when) caught, charged, tried and convicted?  

    I think there are three types of people that post on threads like this.  Those that think meting out "natural justice" is a good thing (spoiler: it isn't).  Those that repeat tropes like "tougher sentencing".  And those that think carefully about what they post.  I am certain that you naturally belong in that latter group.  So I am really surprised that you post about "tougher sentencing".  The perpetrator, if convicted, will serve a life sentence. 
    Mate I wasn’t just thinking about this one in isolation, but in the context of the larger issue.  I don’t know, are our sentences for murder/manslaughter  tough enough?  How many people take a life and see daylight again after 10, 15, 20 years.  I understand where you are coming from, and I know that it’s not as simple as ‘tougher sentencing’ but as in my reply to Shooters, I can’t see how anything else would be as beneficial in the short term.  
  • Chizz said:
    cabbles said:
    Personally, I think tougher sentencing is an absolute must in terms of a short term deterrent.  I understand that the problems are rooted deeper due to societal issues, race, poverty and other huge problems, but to stem the number of lives being lost, whilst (if we ever), get to grips with this problem via a long term strategy, we need harder short term sentencing.  This is just becoming the norm now.  It doesn’t look like this is high on the priorities of any government as a long term goal, so the very least we can do is come down hard on any scumbag that takes a life through violence and knives 
    @cabbles Someone was murdered yesterday in South London, hence this thread being bumped.  What "tougher sentencing" do you think the perpetrator should get, if (hopefully when) caught, charged, tried and convicted?  

    I think there are three types of people that post on threads like this.  Those that think meting out "natural justice" is a good thing (spoiler: it isn't).  Those that repeat tropes like "tougher sentencing".  And those that think carefully about what they post.  I am certain that you naturally belong in that latter group.  So I am really surprised that you post about "tougher sentencing".  The perpetrator, if convicted, will serve a life sentence. 
    I think the “tougher sentencing” issue isn’t solely related to those convicted of such crime. Tougher sentencing is I believe something that should be looked at accross the board. There is little fear or respect for the justice system amongst the criminal elements in society and that needs to be addressed. I would say longer and guaranteed prison for any crime of violence or carrying an offensive weapon is not a knee jerk reaction but a measured response to a crisis in crime.
  • Sponsored links:


  • cabbles said:
    Chizz said:
    cabbles said:
    Personally, I think tougher sentencing is an absolute must in terms of a short term deterrent.  I understand that the problems are rooted deeper due to societal issues, race, poverty and other huge problems, but to stem the number of lives being lost, whilst (if we ever), get to grips with this problem via a long term strategy, we need harder short term sentencing.  This is just becoming the norm now.  It doesn’t look like this is high on the priorities of any government as a long term goal, so the very least we can do is come down hard on any scumbag that takes a life through violence and knives 
    @cabbles Someone was murdered yesterday in South London, hence this thread being bumped.  What "tougher sentencing" do you think the perpetrator should get, if (hopefully when) caught, charged, tried and convicted?  

    I think there are three types of people that post on threads like this.  Those that think meting out "natural justice" is a good thing (spoiler: it isn't).  Those that repeat tropes like "tougher sentencing".  And those that think carefully about what they post.  I am certain that you naturally belong in that latter group.  So I am really surprised that you post about "tougher sentencing".  The perpetrator, if convicted, will serve a life sentence. 
    Mate I wasn’t just thinking about this one in isolation, but in the context of the larger issue.  I don’t know, are our sentences for murder/manslaughter  tough enough?  How many people take a life and see daylight again after 10, 15, 20 years.  I understand where you are coming from, and I know that it’s not as simple as ‘tougher sentencing’ but as in my reply to Shooters, I can’t see how anything else would be as beneficial in the short term.  
    Fair enough - I didn't know your post was in answer to someone else's.  

    The *minimum* sentence you can get for murder in the UK (currently) is life.  So no-one committing a murder will ever complete their sentence.  

    After completing any minimum tariff set by the judge, the parole board *can* decide on a release date, after taking into consideration a number of criteria including whether the prisoner still represents a threat to society.  

    I don't think those terms are insufficient. 
  • Chizz said:
    cabbles said:
    Chizz said:
    cabbles said:
    Personally, I think tougher sentencing is an absolute must in terms of a short term deterrent.  I understand that the problems are rooted deeper due to societal issues, race, poverty and other huge problems, but to stem the number of lives being lost, whilst (if we ever), get to grips with this problem via a long term strategy, we need harder short term sentencing.  This is just becoming the norm now.  It doesn’t look like this is high on the priorities of any government as a long term goal, so the very least we can do is come down hard on any scumbag that takes a life through violence and knives 
    @cabbles Someone was murdered yesterday in South London, hence this thread being bumped.  What "tougher sentencing" do you think the perpetrator should get, if (hopefully when) caught, charged, tried and convicted?  

    I think there are three types of people that post on threads like this.  Those that think meting out "natural justice" is a good thing (spoiler: it isn't).  Those that repeat tropes like "tougher sentencing".  And those that think carefully about what they post.  I am certain that you naturally belong in that latter group.  So I am really surprised that you post about "tougher sentencing".  The perpetrator, if convicted, will serve a life sentence. 
    Mate I wasn’t just thinking about this one in isolation, but in the context of the larger issue.  I don’t know, are our sentences for murder/manslaughter  tough enough?  How many people take a life and see daylight again after 10, 15, 20 years.  I understand where you are coming from, and I know that it’s not as simple as ‘tougher sentencing’ but as in my reply to Shooters, I can’t see how anything else would be as beneficial in the short term.  
    Fair enough - I didn't know your post was in answer to someone else's.  

    The *minimum* sentence you can get for murder in the UK (currently) is life.  So no-one committing a murder will ever complete their sentence.  

    After completing any minimum tariff set by the judge, the parole board *can* decide on a release date, after taking into consideration a number of criteria including whether the prisoner still represents a threat to society.  

    I don't think those terms are insufficient. 
    I understand, and that’s what makes it hard for me on this one.  On the one hand you’ve got the argument that people can (and have) been rehabilitated, but on the other, I can’t get past the fact a life has been taken.  I can’t remember the exact example, but there was a video knocking around a while back of a guy getting punched in the back of the head at Trafalgar Square (I think).  I think it got tried as manslaughter and the perpetrator probably got a sentence to that effect.  To me, that guy should be spending the rest of his life behind bars, but as you say, there’s also a different argument.  I just can’t get my head around the latter 

  • cabbles said:
    Personally, I think tougher sentencing is an absolute must in terms of a short term deterrent.  I understand that the problems are rooted deeper due to societal issues, race, poverty and other huge problems, but to stem the number of lives being lost, whilst (if we ever), get to grips with this problem via a long term strategy, we need harder short term sentencing.  This is just becoming the norm now.  It doesn’t look like this is high on the priorities of any government as a long term goal, so the very least we can do is come down hard on any scumbag that takes a life through violence and knives 
    But do you think the prospect of a custodial sentence even goes through the mind of these offenders? Given that with all the CCTV we have everywhere in this country, and vehicle recognition etc, it is almost impossible to get away with anything and offenders are arrested almost immediately, it’s still not stopping most of these people from carrying out the offences in the first place. I would imagine there are other imperatives such as drug addiction and for those caught up in that, they can’t rationalise in relation to anything else. 
  • It’s complex. Yes to more police, tougher sentences, investment in youth projects. All short term sticking plasters. Long term, housing, education, prison reform, family issues and the list goes on. 

    Shoot to kill policies are simply a ridiculous suggestion.
    The most important thing surely is to ensure that all have hope for a better life. Where there is no hope, you end up with these nihilist behaviours.
  • The police definitely require more power/force. 

    In Portugal last week you knew that if you acted up, you’d get a baton to the swede. If it was our police, there’s absolutely no doubt people would have taken more liberties. There has to be that slight element of fear.
    It’s not more power, it’s just more police that are needed. Perhaps address this with your local Tory MP the 20,000 less police officers that this government have presided over since 2010.
  • Tip a tin of yellow gloss paint over their heads...yeah!
  • Justice has to have a heart and also be when required as hard as granite. I don’t want to see a system where circumstances to a crime are not taken into consideration. I do want to see sentences that act as a deterrent. Carrying a knife has the sure and certain consequence of going to prison for a fixed term regardless of whether it has been used and by fixed term I mean perhaps two years. Using a knife carries a tariff of minimum ten years. Robbery minimum ten. Drug dealing second offence minimum five years. You get my drift. All expensive and pointless if the underlying causes are also not addressed and that is a generation or more of work.
  • edited June 15
    Chizz said:
    The police definitely require more power/force. 

    In Portugal last week you knew that if you acted up, you’d get a baton to the swede. If it was our police, there’s absolutely no doubt people would have taken more liberties. There has to be that slight element of fear.
    I know that you and I are unlikely to agree on how best to deal with this situation, so it's difficult for me to ask this question in a way that's not inflammatory.  But, I would genuinely like to know what you think about this.  What additional power or force should the police have been allowed to deploy that would have prevented yesterday's murder?  

    I can't imagine what additional authority the police could have had which would have stopped the victim being shot yesterday.  But if there is something, I would really like to know, because (within reason) it would absolutely get my support.  

    What additional police power would have prevented yesterday's crime? 
    I don’t in any way think immediate action would have prevented it, but over time, if the police have a more fear like presence in urban areas, then it might deter the next generation of potential criminals and gang members away. 

    At the moment, the met police are a laughing stock amongst young inner city neighbourhoods. Little fat PCO’s trying to ‘get down with the kids’ isn’t the way forward in my opinion. If a group of coppers walk through an estate then it should put the fear up these kids. 

    Im not saying it’s the answer, but I think it’ll have some sort of effect.
  • cabbles said:
    Chizz said:
    cabbles said:
    Personally, I think tougher sentencing is an absolute must in terms of a short term deterrent.  I understand that the problems are rooted deeper due to societal issues, race, poverty and other huge problems, but to stem the number of lives being lost, whilst (if we ever), get to grips with this problem via a long term strategy, we need harder short term sentencing.  This is just becoming the norm now.  It doesn’t look like this is high on the priorities of any government as a long term goal, so the very least we can do is come down hard on any scumbag that takes a life through violence and knives 
    @cabbles Someone was murdered yesterday in South London, hence this thread being bumped.  What "tougher sentencing" do you think the perpetrator should get, if (hopefully when) caught, charged, tried and convicted?  

    I think there are three types of people that post on threads like this.  Those that think meting out "natural justice" is a good thing (spoiler: it isn't).  Those that repeat tropes like "tougher sentencing".  And those that think carefully about what they post.  I am certain that you naturally belong in that latter group.  So I am really surprised that you post about "tougher sentencing".  The perpetrator, if convicted, will serve a life sentence. 
    Mate I wasn’t just thinking about this one in isolation, but in the context of the larger issue.  I don’t know, are our sentences for murder/manslaughter  tough enough?  How many people take a life and see daylight again after 10, 15, 20 years.  I understand where you are coming from, and I know that it’s not as simple as ‘tougher sentencing’ but as in my reply to Shooters, I can’t see how anything else would be as beneficial in the short term.  
    Would you not consider losing 10, 15, 20 years of your life a sufficient deterrent?

    If you would, then why do you think the people committing these crimes don't?

    It's in that difference that the problem lies, and it's a complex problem that won't be solved with simplistic solutions. If people aren't concerned about losing 10 years of their lives, I doubt the prospect of a longer sentence would be of much concern either.
  • Admittedly commenting from looking from the outside, but since I left the UK I realise how nihilistic some youth culture can be compared to other countries. There seems to be a complete lack of empathy which causes this complete disregard for human life. I agree tough action is needed but there seems to be something far deeper that needs addressing.
This discussion has been closed.

Roland Out!