'Law change to curb yobs'
Discussion
[quote=The Sun]
By GEORGE PASCOE-WATSON
Deputy Political Editor
TONY Blair last night sensationally vowed to end the tradition of being presumed innocent until found guilty.
The PM pledged to turn the nation’s criminal justice system on its head and hand police sweeping new powers.
He promised fixed penalty notices for ANY crime — forcing suspects to prove their innocence in court.
Mr Blair admitted it was a “watershed” moment in legal history. He said in Downing Street: “It’s summary justice. It’s tough but in my judgment the only way to deal with it.”
Offenders would range from street yobs yelling abuse to international organised crime.
He warned the criminal justice system has lost all hope of tackling crime — and insisted the way to restore justice for “law-abiding citizens” was to rip up centuries of legal tradition.
Mr Blair admitted cops have all but given up pursuing villains through the courts. And he vowed to bring in whatever laws they want.
He said:
If people want us to tackle the new types of crime today you can’t do it by the rules of the game we have at the moment.
There is international crime, very brutal violent organised crime, anti-social behaviour.
In every respect these types of crime are different from when I was growing up.
People can write articles about going through this process. But it’s too complicated and too laborious.
The police end up being hidebound by a whole series of restrictions. It’s too complicated. We have to put the duty to protect the law-abiding citizen at the centre of the system.
If you are a police officer patrolling the streets and someone throws a brick through a window or abuses an old lady on the way to the shops . . . If you have to take that person all the way through a long court process, you are not going to do it.
By the time you have filled out all the forms, done the statements, got them to court, three hearings, they have defence lawyers, all the rest of it, forget it.
You may say ‘yes, we should do that if we are going to charge someone with an offence’. But if that’s what you do, you don’t get the job done.
The reason I introduced fixed penalties was I said ‘we have had enough of that’. With serious crime, it takes two or three years. Heaven knows the millions they spend putting it together. We then have trials going on forever and half of them get off in the end. It’s ridiculous.
If you want to change it you can change it but not by pretending the same system can be applied with a little bit of effort, because it doesn’t work.
Bringing in the laws is certain to trigger a massive rights backlash and battle with the courts.
Yesterday new Lord Chief Justice Lord Phillips warned the PM against “browbeating” judges.
Among the steps in Mr Blair’s plan is to stop housing benefit for noisy neighbours.
He also vowed even tougher crackdowns on licensees who give under-age drinkers booze and parents who fail to keep their children in check.[/quote]
Guilty until proven innocent?!!
Is this scary or what? Bliar f:censored:cks around with the existing laws to make the scrotes into the victims (Human Rights crap) then says the Police don't have enough powers and wants to impose this shite on us.
Whats the betting this will result in more innocent 'normal' people being criminalised as per the 'Safety Partnerships'.
Yet more Labour control freakery and another nail in the coffin of our civil rights.
By GEORGE PASCOE-WATSON
Deputy Political Editor
TONY Blair last night sensationally vowed to end the tradition of being presumed innocent until found guilty.
The PM pledged to turn the nation’s criminal justice system on its head and hand police sweeping new powers.
He promised fixed penalty notices for ANY crime — forcing suspects to prove their innocence in court.
Mr Blair admitted it was a “watershed” moment in legal history. He said in Downing Street: “It’s summary justice. It’s tough but in my judgment the only way to deal with it.”
Offenders would range from street yobs yelling abuse to international organised crime.
He warned the criminal justice system has lost all hope of tackling crime — and insisted the way to restore justice for “law-abiding citizens” was to rip up centuries of legal tradition.
Mr Blair admitted cops have all but given up pursuing villains through the courts. And he vowed to bring in whatever laws they want.
He said:
If people want us to tackle the new types of crime today you can’t do it by the rules of the game we have at the moment.
There is international crime, very brutal violent organised crime, anti-social behaviour.
In every respect these types of crime are different from when I was growing up.
People can write articles about going through this process. But it’s too complicated and too laborious.
The police end up being hidebound by a whole series of restrictions. It’s too complicated. We have to put the duty to protect the law-abiding citizen at the centre of the system.
If you are a police officer patrolling the streets and someone throws a brick through a window or abuses an old lady on the way to the shops . . . If you have to take that person all the way through a long court process, you are not going to do it.
By the time you have filled out all the forms, done the statements, got them to court, three hearings, they have defence lawyers, all the rest of it, forget it.
You may say ‘yes, we should do that if we are going to charge someone with an offence’. But if that’s what you do, you don’t get the job done.
The reason I introduced fixed penalties was I said ‘we have had enough of that’. With serious crime, it takes two or three years. Heaven knows the millions they spend putting it together. We then have trials going on forever and half of them get off in the end. It’s ridiculous.
If you want to change it you can change it but not by pretending the same system can be applied with a little bit of effort, because it doesn’t work.
Bringing in the laws is certain to trigger a massive rights backlash and battle with the courts.
Yesterday new Lord Chief Justice Lord Phillips warned the PM against “browbeating” judges.
Among the steps in Mr Blair’s plan is to stop housing benefit for noisy neighbours.
He also vowed even tougher crackdowns on licensees who give under-age drinkers booze and parents who fail to keep their children in check.[/quote]
Guilty until proven innocent?!!
Is this scary or what? Bliar f:censored:cks around with the existing laws to make the scrotes into the victims (Human Rights crap) then says the Police don't have enough powers and wants to impose this shite on us.
Whats the betting this will result in more innocent 'normal' people being criminalised as per the 'Safety Partnerships'.
Yet more Labour control freakery and another nail in the coffin of our civil rights.
This is very interesting and I am not sure quite what to make of it yet.
On the one hand, Blair is correct that the existing system simply doesn't work, and can no longer be relied upon to make any significant inroads into anti-social behaviour.
I think I would be wary of this new approach being applied to "organised crime" etc.
However, if we are truly going to make any progress with tackling anti-social behavour, then radical ideas and new approaches are needed. It's a bold move, but there is no more time for timidity.
On the one hand, Blair is correct that the existing system simply doesn't work, and can no longer be relied upon to make any significant inroads into anti-social behaviour.
I think I would be wary of this new approach being applied to "organised crime" etc.
However, if we are truly going to make any progress with tackling anti-social behavour, then radical ideas and new approaches are needed. It's a bold move, but there is no more time for timidity.
Typical of New Labour
They bind the police in red tape, forcing them to fill in forms every time they stop someone, and then complain that they are unable to do their jobs properly.
What we need are the police free from petty paper work and proper sentences for criminals not the abandonment of the principles of our criminal justice system.
They bind the police in red tape, forcing them to fill in forms every time they stop someone, and then complain that they are unable to do their jobs properly.
What we need are the police free from petty paper work and proper sentences for criminals not the abandonment of the principles of our criminal justice system.
maxrider said:
stuff in the sun
Guilty until proven innocent?!!
Is this scary or what? Bliar fcks around with the existing laws to make the scrotes into the victims (Human Rights crap) then says the Police don't have enough powers and wants to impose this shite on us.
Whats the betting this will result in more innocent 'normal' people being criminalised as per the 'Safety Partnerships'.
Yet more Labour control freakery and another nail in the coffin of our civil rights.
That IS scary. Hardened criminals will know how to get around the system, but the real innocents won't have a clue. We'll end up with innocent people being locked up because they can't prove their innocence and the criminals walking around with their freedom intact.
As much as I agree the system needs a shake up, I don't think assuming a person is guilty until proved innocent is the answer. More what needs to happen is that if a person is found undeniably guilty (which we're able to do more these days because of the technology available), then their human rights shouldn't even come into the equation and they should serve the time they're dealt instead of being able to appeal and being out after 18 months for murder/rape/dealing drugs, or other serious crimes.
One point, whilst I am sure that many BiBs are honest, decent and would never misuse their powers the sad fact is that there are also many BiBs who are corrupt and not always on the side of the law that they should be on.
The whole point about the judicial system is to ensure that the police are not judge and jury, in order partly at least to keep the Police in check.
The whole point about the judicial system is to ensure that the police are not judge and jury, in order partly at least to keep the Police in check.
Call me cynical, but why does none of this surprise me. Text book tactics for the budding dictator: talk loudly about being tough on crime, whilst actually doing nothing about it (or even sureptiously encouraging it) until the people are ready to agree to any ridiculous laws 'needed' to tackle the problem. Bye-bye civil rights and hello Police state in one fell swoop.
Assuming of course that the Sun article is even vaguely representative of the truth
Assuming of course that the Sun article is even vaguely representative of the truth
judas said:
Call me cynical, but why does none of this surprise me. Text book tactics for the budding dictator: talk loudly about being tough on crime, whilst actually doing nothing about it (or even sureptiously encouraging it) until the people are ready to agree to any ridiculous laws 'needed' to tackle the problem. Bye-bye civil rights and hello Police state in one fell swoop.
Assuming of course that the Sun article is even vaguely representative of the truth
Indeed the Police/Government for example do not want a society free of crime, crime is necessary in order to justify their powers and existence, what the police want is a state where everyone is guilty and it is then up to the police to decide if/when/where to detain them.
If you do not have to commit a crime to be guilty of a crime I think you'll find that most people will keep their heads down.
boiler said:
How on earth can guilty until proven innocent be good for anyone? It *may* work in a clear cut case, where an officer sees someone commit a crime, but in that scenario they already have the evidence of guilt. I am sure the legal process could do with some modernisation, but...
And what if the officers in question are lying? Police officers have been known to lie you know.
Mrs trackside said:
stuff in the sun
Guilty until proven innocent?!!
Is this scary or what? Bliar f
Whats the betting this will result in more innocent 'normal' people being criminalised as per the 'Safety Partnerships'.
Yet more Labour control freakery and another nail in the coffin of our civil rights.
That IS scary. Hardened criminals will know how to get around the system, but the real innocents won't have a clue. We'll end up with innocent people being locked up because they can't prove their innocence and the criminals walking around with their freedom intact.
As much as I agree the system needs a shake up, I don't think assuming a person is guilty until proved innocent is the answer. More what needs to happen is that if a person is found undeniably guilty (which we're able to do more these days because of the technology available), then their human rights shouldn't even come into the equation and they should serve the time they're dealt instead of being able to appeal and being out after 18 months for murder/rape/dealing drugs, or other serious crimes.
I don't agree. Regardless of crime, when you start seriously curtailing or removing human rights it is the start of a very slippery slope. I do agree that sentence length should be just that - the amount of time a person serves.
I think also that the Police will need to be very carefully monitored as to how these new powers are used. But the biggest social problem facing the UK is now continuous anti-social behaviour. I doubt anyone is going to be sent down for a first offence of shouting in the street, but if they manage to accumulate three such orders, for example, then perhaps they need to be dealt with much more severely.
The bottomo line is that in today's society, scrotes get away with 99.99% of the anti-social behaviour they inflict on the rest of us simoply because they know that the chances of them ever having to answer for their behaviour is effectively nil.
If we could make it so perhaps they have a 10-20% chance of actually being punished, then the there will be a huge chang ein the level of anti-social behaviour, because people will have a real fear of being punished.
Bear in mind that most scrotes are constant and persistant offenders - their bad behaviour is constant and ongoing. Under this new system they will get caught, sooner or later, and punished.
And cured?
Probably not.
Just be warned. When the police have powers to stop, arrest, charge, judge and commit to sentence all in one go - we are in big trouble.
My stepson was only the other day accused by a policeman (in a formal letter - not in the street) of engaging in a crminal activity (I won't go into details). In reality, the police had spotted his car in the vicinity of a premises they had placed under surveillance as they were suspicious that a criminal activity was being carried out in the premises.
In actual fact, the reason why his car was regularly in that area was because he is required by his office to make a daily visit to their bank branch, which is a few doors down from the suspect premises. His employer has now written a strongly worded letter to the DC who wrote the original letter explaining the situation asking them to withdraw the allegations immediately.
We are awaiting a reply.
Under Blair's ptroposals, my stepson might already be locked up!!!
NOT the way to go.
Probably not.
Just be warned. When the police have powers to stop, arrest, charge, judge and commit to sentence all in one go - we are in big trouble.
My stepson was only the other day accused by a policeman (in a formal letter - not in the street) of engaging in a crminal activity (I won't go into details). In reality, the police had spotted his car in the vicinity of a premises they had placed under surveillance as they were suspicious that a criminal activity was being carried out in the premises.
In actual fact, the reason why his car was regularly in that area was because he is required by his office to make a daily visit to their bank branch, which is a few doors down from the suspect premises. His employer has now written a strongly worded letter to the DC who wrote the original letter explaining the situation asking them to withdraw the allegations immediately.
We are awaiting a reply.
Under Blair's ptroposals, my stepson might already be locked up!!!
NOT the way to go.
I cannot believe that anyone could express anything but contempt and outrage for these plans. Innocent until proven guilty is the most fundamental tenet of our criminal justice system, and is protect the individual from the might of the state; ANY step away from that will inevitably lead to horrendous miscarriages of justice.
The problem with the criminal justice system at the moment, as has so often been the case, as that the powers that currently exist are not properly exercised, but instead of trying to improve the pathetic record they have with perfectly adequate powers, they try this. If this story is true, and if there is any sense left in this country, it should bring down the Government.
The problem with the criminal justice system at the moment, as has so often been the case, as that the powers that currently exist are not properly exercised, but instead of trying to improve the pathetic record they have with perfectly adequate powers, they try this. If this story is true, and if there is any sense left in this country, it should bring down the Government.
The "Magna Carta" was created to ensure that 'The State' could never (legally) have this power.
It cannot be repealed.
The Judiciary should stop any attempt to impose such legislation.
Blair knows this and so I think he will decriminalise many low-level offences and therefore any penalty will be a Civil one as done with parking restrictions.
It cannot be repealed.
The Judiciary should stop any attempt to impose such legislation.
Blair knows this and so I think he will decriminalise many low-level offences and therefore any penalty will be a Civil one as done with parking restrictions.
Gassing Station | The Pie & Piston Archive | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff