Guilty until proven innocent - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

d*d · 01-10-2006, 08:42 AM

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4595788.stm

Quote:

Blair unveils his 'respect' plans

People could be evicted from their own homes for three months if they are nuisance neighbours, under a new action plan for Tony Blair's "respect agenda".

Police could also get new powers to deliver on-the-spot fines, and there would be more parenting orders.

The plan would also allow the public to grill police about anti-social behaviour and demand tougher action.

Mr Blair said the plans were not a "gimmick" but would help "take back the streets for the law-abiding majority".

Existing laws mean "crack houses" used by drug addicts can already be shut down.

Ministers are now consulting on extending the idea so people can be evicted from their homes for three months.

Most computers will open PDF documents automatically, but you may need to download Adobe Acrobat Reader.

Eviction by court order would be a "last resort", says the government but it could, for example, be used against students who annoy their neighbours with loud music.

Fines for owner-occupiers and others not on housing benefit who persist with anti-social behaviour are also being considered.

Burden of proof

Mr Blair set up a "respect" task force last year and the plans are the first real fruits of its work, with 16 ministers dispatched around the country to spread the message.

In a speech in Downing Street, the prime minister said traditional justice measures simply were not working.

MAIN MEASURES
Consulting on idea of evicting nuisance families from their homes for three months
Police and councils to have to hold "face the people" sessions - with the public able to demand tougher action
More use of parenting orders and a new national parenting academy to train officials on giving advice
Youth opportunity cards giving discounts on activities for youngsters doing voluntary work
New mentoring schemes, including one using top class athletes
Local councils to have to put family support networks in place
New nationwide non-emergency telephone number to make it easier to report nuisance behaviour

For example, somebody spitting at an old lady in the street would not be prosecuted because it used too much police time and the only result was a fine.

Mr Blair accepted that on-the-spot fines for some offences reversed the principle that people were innocent until proven guilty.

But he argued: "To get on top of 21st century crime we need to accept that what works in practice, in reality on the streets, is a measure of summary powers with right of appeal alongside the traditional court processes."

He stressed that the vast majority of people, including young people and families on low incomes, did respect each other.

'Face the people'

The plans would force police officers and council officials to hold "face the people" sessions to explain what action they were taking.

Where local people were not satisfied, they could ask new local scrutiny committees to investigate through "community calls to action".

HAVE YOUR SAY
If any government or group of people wants to promote a more respectful society, it is admirable and needs supporting
K. Woollett, Southampton

The police and other agencies would have a duty to respond to the committees' findings.

As well as punitive measures, ministers insist they want to provide help families improve their behaviour.

Conservative leader David Cameron said Mr Blair had been tough neither on crime nor its causes.

'Pessimistic'

As he met voluntary group leaders in London, he said: "The real respect agenda must include long-term solutions to the causes of social breakdown, not just short-term sanctions and punishment.

"The real respect agenda must be based on optimism about the ability of people and communities to create civilised lives for themselves, rather than a pessimistic view of human nature."

Mr Cameron wants to make it easier for voluntary groups to pioneer new measures.

And he plans to create a national school leaver programme to give every young person the chance to take part in voluntary work in Britain or abroad.

Liberal Democrat home affairs spokesman Mark Oaten said making communities safer and helping families was an enormous challenge.

He warned: "It cannot be achieved with this government's usual mish-mash of gimmicks and spin."

The Parentline Plus charity argued that threats of punishments to parents could make them less willing to seek help before their families reached crisis.

We have a 'thug' problem here in the UK, and this is the governments initiative to tackle it, the thing that interested me was the 'burden of proof' aspect - a person is no longer innocent until proven guilty, admitedly only for what would be classed as minor crimes this is still a notable shift in the Law which I'm not sure about.

Im not sure if the problems we have with these thugs/kids can be effectively dealt with by only tackling the crimes they, there needs to be some fundamental shift in how we foster respect and a sense of responsibility for society from the start.

stevie667 · 01-10-2006, 11:10 AM

Gimmick, despite what mr.blair says.

It's all very well making more people get more fines, but if we actually bothered tackling crime in a more pro-active, harsher way, maybe we wouldn't need this kind of crap.

ziadel · 01-13-2006, 09:59 AM

mebbe if the population was armed you wouldnt have so much crime... *shrug*

nezmot · 01-13-2006, 03:18 PM

or maybe not - arming the populace just exacerbates violence and disrespect - as proven in the USA...*shrug*

Jinn · 01-13-2006, 03:35 PM

Quote:

or maybe not - arming the populace just exacerbates violence and disrespect - as proven in the USA...*shrug*

Proven where? Study after study shows CCW permits lower crime rates dramatically, especially violent crime.

Gatorade Frost · 01-13-2006, 03:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JinnKai

Proven where? Study after study shows CCW permits lower crime rates dramatically, especially violent crime.

I believe it when either of you two provides studies.

I'd like to think that ccw permits lower crime rates, though. As another perk to the right to bear arms, that is.

Journeyman · 01-14-2006, 04:42 AM

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/...un.rights.html

Quote:

Now, however, the author of a new book, More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun Control Laws, has analyzed crime rates in the 10 states that passed right-to-carry laws from 1977 to 1992. He contends that after more relaxed concealed-carry laws were enacted, murders fell an average of 8%, rapes 5% and aggravated assaults 7%. (For the same period in the entire country, the number of murders went up 24%, and rapes 71%. Assaults more than doubled.) The purported reason: would-be criminals were deterred from choosing victims who just might have a pistol tucked in their purse. Increases in accidental deaths by handguns--on the whole relatively rare--were barely noticeable, fewer than one death a year.

Personally, I'd be a lot less apt to try to rob a cracked out drug dealer who I figure would be armed than I would my next-door neighbor. Unless my neighbor was armed.

highthief · 01-14-2006, 04:49 AM

How is this "guilty till proven innocent". You can be fined right now for traffic violations or spitting on the sidewalk. Is this saying you don't get a day in court if you choose to fight your fine?

nezmot · 01-14-2006, 06:30 AM

Concealed carry might be a good way to reduce violent crime where guns have already saturated the populace - but in the UK, we are a long way from reaching this state of affairs. I might dig out the various crime figures to compare between one country and another, but of course there are many other factors that effect crime figures other than the availability of deadly weaponry, so I wonder how much it would actually prove.

Sorry for taking us off topic, but I just wanted to counter ziadel's suggestion that arming people is the answer.

ziadel · 01-14-2006, 10:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nezmot

Concealed carry might be a good way to reduce violent crime where guns have already saturated the populace - but in the UK, we are a long way from reaching this state of affairs. I might dig out the various crime figures to compare between one country and another, but of course there are many other factors that effect crime figures other than the availability of deadly weaponry, so I wonder how much it would actually prove.

Sorry for taking us off topic, but I just wanted to counter ziadel's suggestion that arming people is the answer.

how can guns saturate the populace in the UK!? They're illegal!

hell, in the UK its ILLEGAL to carry ANYTHING that can be used for self defense, pocket knives, mace, sharp sticks, all illegal.

your sitting ducks, and will be raped and pillaged as such by anyone who is not.

highthief's sigh rings true, if you want peace prepare for war.

flamingdog · 01-14-2006, 10:41 AM

I don't carry weaponry with me, and I've never been 'raped and pillaged' as you put it. It's not frigging Mad Max out there.

nezmot · 01-14-2006, 12:22 PM

Quote:

how can guns saturate the populace in the UK!? They're illegal!

*sigh* - that was my point.

Quote:

your sitting ducks, and will be raped and pillaged as such by anyone who is not.

Well I've never been raped, or pillaged - and in addition, I don't have to worry about lunatics carrying deadly weapons. Personally, I like it that way. You evidently don't. Well done you. Now can we get back to the original topic please?

p.s. it's you're, not your.

ziadel · 01-14-2006, 12:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nezmot

p.s. it's you're, not your.

I never said I was a scholar of the enligh language

MSD · 01-16-2006, 03:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nezmot

Concealed carry might be a good way to reduce violent crime where guns have already saturated the populace - but in the UK, we are a long way from reaching this state of affairs. I might dig out the various crime figures to compare between one country and another, but of course there are many other factors that effect crime figures other than the availability of deadly weaponry, so I wonder how much it would actually prove.

Sorry for taking us off topic, but I just wanted to counter ziadel's suggestion that arming people is the answer.

From what I've heard about the UK, fighting back leads courts to blame the victim. Concealed carry, even of knives or batons, would have little success. Deadly force is not viewed kindly by the legal system.

From what I've heard from dozens of Britons, the biggest problem is the public apathy toward fellow citizens. I've heard dozens of stories from people who had to stand alone against mobs of thugs while onlookers and passerby paid no attention. One man was attacked on a bus by three teen girls who spit on him, burned him with cigarettes and lighters, and threatened to stab him simply because he asked them to stop smoking. The rest of the passengers did nothing and ignored the confrontation. Many people who have been attacked said that they were afraid that they would be prosecuted for attacking minors, even in self-defense.

Draconian laws with few safeguards against abuse will do little to help. An attitude change is what needs to happen. I don't want to sound like I'm picking on another country's culture, but it sounds to me like the apathy and lack of concern for others is worse in the UK than in major US cities infamous for the same.

feelgood · 01-16-2006, 03:48 PM

Quote:

Most computers will open PDF documents automatically, but you may need to download Adobe Acrobat Reader.

Anybody care to tell me how this particular part plays into a story about a new law relating to social order?

01-10-2006, 11:10 AM	#2 (permalink)
stevie667 Too Awesome for Aardvarks Location: Angloland	Gimmick, despite what mr.blair says. It's all very well making more people get more fines, but if we actually bothered tackling crime in a more pro-active, harsher way, maybe we wouldn't need this kind of crap. __________________ Office hours have changed. Please call during office hours for more information.

01-13-2006, 09:59 AM	#3 (permalink)
ziadel Myrmidon Location: In the twilight and mist.	mebbe if the population was armed you wouldnt have so much crime... shrug __________________ Ron Paul '08 Vote for Freedom Go ahead and google Dr. Ron Paul. You'll like what you read.

01-14-2006, 04:49 AM	#8 (permalink)
highthief Junkie Location: Ontario, Canada	How is this "guilty till proven innocent". You can be fined right now for traffic violations or spitting on the sidewalk. Is this saying you don't get a day in court if you choose to fight your fine? __________________ Si vis pacem parabellum.

01-13-2006, 03:18 PM	#4 (permalink)
nezmot Registered User	or maybe not - arming the populace just exacerbates violence and disrespect - as proven in the USA...shrug

01-14-2006, 06:30 AM	#9 (permalink)
nezmot Registered User	Concealed carry might be a good way to reduce violent crime where guns have already saturated the populace - but in the UK, we are a long way from reaching this state of affairs. I might dig out the various crime figures to compare between one country and another, but of course there are many other factors that effect crime figures other than the availability of deadly weaponry, so I wonder how much it would actually prove. Sorry for taking us off topic, but I just wanted to counter ziadel's suggestion that arming people is the answer.

01-14-2006, 10:41 AM	#11 (permalink)
flamingdog Still fighting it.	I don't carry weaponry with me, and I've never been 'raped and pillaged' as you put it. It's not frigging Mad Max out there.