Filed under Crime & Punishment

Extreme overreaction

A magistrate, posting a comment on the excellent Magistrate’s Blog:

A case: Man in his 30s bought a bunch of flowers in an old-fashioned florist. Long story, but groped the 16 year old assistant through her overall – no flesh-on-flesh contact. Immediate apology – with an unwanted peck on the cheek. Long story but he got four months. Lost his job as an architect’s draughtsman. Well known member of the Pakistani community here – lost face. Probably an even bigger shock than our sentence. Appealed and sentence upheld. So yes, we ruined his day.

Right. So for something so trivial that only an Andrea Dworkin-esque loony could view it as anything other than a bit rude and thoroughly slap-worthy, this poor bugger has his life ruined – and the courts and appeal courts think this is entirely acceptable?

I’m not Richard Littlejohn, and often find that stuff that gets labelled “politically correct” is sensible and reasonable behaviour (teaching children not to be bigots, making people actually do their jobs, etc). But for the love of God, what kind of loony would call the rozzers in the first place in such a context; and what kind of mad rozzer would take it further than a caution? Jesus Christ…

Evil, evil bastards

If you support the government’s allegedly planned ban on the possession violent pornography, you should be raped, strangled and have your body dumped in a garage for a week. It’s a fucking appalling, indefensible piece of legislation.

Update: these people have a more productive take on the issue.

Perspective #2

PDF: “You do loads of business in the States, aren’t you worried about the fact they’ve started jailing British businessmen on the slightest pretext?”

Another Friend Of PDF: “What, you mean NatWest and BetOnSports? Not really, it’s about the same odds as being blown up by terrorists, and I’m not worried about that.”

PDF: “Christ, good point - of course, the Brits who died on September 11 were all in the WTC on business, weren’t they?”

AFOP: “I hadn’t even thought of that, but you’re right. So it’s a 10:1 terrorist:random jail ratio, and we’re not afraid of the terrorists either, so obviously being afraid of random jail would be silly.”

PDF: “Indeed. So why the hell does the second scare me so much more than the first?”

AFOP: “Probably because you’re a cock.”

Damn these cheating bastards

Yet more assymmetric warfare. These people should be brought back to life by voodoo, just to make clear that you can’t beat the system.

It’s official

You can now be sent off to one of the world’s most notorious human-rights-abusing powers and tried in front of a highly partisan jury on the basis of no evidence whatsoever, all for sitting at your desk in the UK and doing your job.

Whether or not the NatWest Three are guilty is entirely irrelevant. If they defrauded anyone, it was NatWest; NatWest was and remains a British company; its past and present owners have no interest in prosecuting them or desire to prosecute them; and all the relevant transactions they’re accused of making were conducted in London. If you support their extradition to the undeniable hellhole that is Texas, you deserve no human rights of your own whatsoever.

And the fact that everyone who lost money on Enron, as in almost every financial scandal ever, was a greedy thick fuck who thoroughly deserved to lose every penny isn’t even relevant to any of the above.

Terrorist stupidity

David Cameron claims that the Human Rights Act is preventing us from stopping The Evil Terrorists (TM), and that therefore it should be abolished.

This is bollocks.

The thing which has prevented us from stopping The Evil Terrorists (TM) is that MI5 and the police are a bunch of useless fuckwits without the slightest clue about Islamist terrorism (or indeed, anything else).

Cameron’s idiotic crowd-pleasing is symptomatic of a wider fallacy. In the UK, we currently have the laws in place to arrest more or less anyone bad for more or less anything bad. There are a few exceptions, but they generally aren’t worth worrying about – if you can think of any which are, then leave a comment.

The problem, and the thing which frustrates the public, is that the laws we already have aren’t always enforced effectively. The enforcement isn’t usually all that dreadful, hence crime falling and the UK remaining quite a nice place to live unless you’re a paranoid BNP loony, but when the system does go wrong it is almost inevitably because enforcement has failed.

But in such cases, instead of pledging better enforcement of existing laws, politicians and media commentators (I’m not convinced there’s a difference between the two any more) propose new laws to make something which was already illegal even more so, as if this would make a blind bit of difference to anybody.

Anti-crime fundays

Always a highly effective way of reducing crime.

Let this be a warning

I’m not generally a fan of random murderous attacks. But if the yoof who got stabbed on a long distance train yesterday had been, say, going through every ring-tone on his mobile, or playing crap mp3s at boombox volume to the whole carriage, or sitting with his feet on the seat opposite, then the outcome would have been wholly just and proportionate.

Update: no, it sounds like he merely got involved in some horrible chavs’ domestic. Also unwise, but certainly not reprehensible. Poor bugger.

Update 2: aah, geeks.

You mean like ASBOs?

According to the BBC, “composting has… been credited with banishing vermin from
inner-London estates”.

Thanks for sharing, Mr Psychologist

I know what the BBC’s article on German cannibal and now-life-imprisonee Armin Meiwes is trying to say, but –

In a key moment, a psychologist said Meiwes could reoffend and he himself had admitted he still had fantasies about devouring the flesh of attractive young people.

…doesn’t quite convey the meaning intended.

“This man is a dangerous cannibal who could reoffend. And I should know, because I fantasize about devouring the flesh of attractive young people. Oh fuck, did I say that out loud?”