talkFORUM

Roy Twing wrote:

Vespa wrote:

Hillman avenger wrote:That is unsustainable.
As far as this incident is concerned, try listening before judging.
In particular the history of this government being told, in 2016, that its cuts in prison service spending, rehab services and the depletion and dumbing-down of probation would lead to something like this. You turn prison into an intense school for terrorism.
But of course that twat Gove was Justice Secretary and ignored most of it.

The first lie of the situation is you can't keep people in jail forever for most of the crimes they've been convicted of. The second lie is that you can track them like white rhino when they get out.

No government wants to fund prisons and no government wants to fund a probation service to deal with them once they've been let out. 60% of prisons are currently overcrowded and the reoffending rate is 30%.

There is no guarantee that if Usman Khan had completed his entire sentence that he still wouldn't have gone on to kill people.

I don't have any answers, no one does.

I do think it would be a good start to strip all religious groups of the bizarre special status they have that appears to put them outside the boundaries of normal civil society in the UK. Strip them any political franchise (i.e. House of Lords), strip them off the self-censoring blanket that prevents any real criticism, strip them over the right to start schools and strip of the ability to import people on 'missionary work'.

Religious groups should have the same rights as the local environmental charity no less no more. Could you imagine your local homeless charity getting away with systemic child abuse or the local Alcoholics Anonymous meeting being allowed to advocate for attacks on the local off-license?

Maybe once we're able to ridicule religion in the same way we ridicule the likes of the BNP these people we become fewer.

If someone is proven to be a danger to society (ie, a psychopath, terrorist, paedophile etc.) they should not be at liberty if there is a probability that they will offend.
The only reason there is no solution is because of the liberal attitudes that we are brainwashed into believing are the only attitudes acceptable in a civilised society. I would dispute that.

As to 'ridiculing religion' - you do realise that we've always been able to, and have done, ......that is until one particular 'religion' became more prominent in the western world, - we are now unable to ridicule them because of fear of retribution.
Can you guess which 'religion' that is?

Zambo wrote:

Roy Twing wrote:

Vespa wrote:

Hillman avenger wrote:That is unsustainable.
As far as this incident is concerned, try listening before judging.
In particular the history of this government being told, in 2016, that its cuts in prison service spending, rehab services and the depletion and dumbing-down of probation would lead to something like this. You turn prison into an intense school for terrorism.
But of course that twat Gove was Justice Secretary and ignored most of it.

The first lie of the situation is you can't keep people in jail forever for most of the crimes they've been convicted of. The second lie is that you can track them like white rhino when they get out.

No government wants to fund prisons and no government wants to fund a probation service to deal with them once they've been let out. 60% of prisons are currently overcrowded and the reoffending rate is 30%.

There is no guarantee that if Usman Khan had completed his entire sentence that he still wouldn't have gone on to kill people.

I don't have any answers, no one does.

I do think it would be a good start to strip all religious groups of the bizarre special status they have that appears to put them outside the boundaries of normal civil society in the UK. Strip them any political franchise (i.e. House of Lords), strip them off the self-censoring blanket that prevents any real criticism, strip them over the right to start schools and strip of the ability to import people on 'missionary work'.

Religious groups should have the same rights as the local environmental charity no less no more. Could you imagine your local homeless charity getting away with systemic child abuse or the local Alcoholics Anonymous meeting being allowed to advocate for attacks on the local off-license?

Maybe once we're able to ridicule religion in the same way we ridicule the likes of the BNP these people we become fewer.

If someone is proven to be a danger to society (ie, a psychopath, terrorist, paedophile etc.) they should not be at liberty if there is a probability that they will offend.
The only reason there is no solution is because of the liberal attitudes that we are brainwashed into believing are the only attitudes acceptable in a civilised society. I would dispute that.

As to 'ridiculing religion' - you do realise that we've always been able to, and have done, ......that is until one particular 'religion' became more prominent in the western world, - we are now unable to ridicule them because of fear of retribution.
Can you guess which 'religion' that is?

I really couldn't give a shit whether this is a EU law or not, nor what religion he was, but I just find it staggering, that there are people defending the system which allowed these murders to take place. For some, the protection of society seems further down the list than the human rights (whatever they are) of the criminal. You have to wonder if a member of their family had been stabbed on London Bridge whether they would still be bleating on about it. When someone kills another person, as far as I'm concerned whatever human rights they had before committing, are removed immediately.

Again the victims, the family of the victims, justice, punishment and deterrent don't seem to matter much.

Vespa wrote:

Zambo wrote:

Roy Twing wrote:

Vespa wrote:

Hillman avenger wrote:That is unsustainable.
As far as this incident is concerned, try listening before judging.
In particular the history of this government being told, in 2016, that its cuts in prison service spending, rehab services and the depletion and dumbing-down of probation would lead to something like this. You turn prison into an intense school for terrorism.
But of course that twat Gove was Justice Secretary and ignored most of it.

The first lie of the situation is you can't keep people in jail forever for most of the crimes they've been convicted of. The second lie is that you can track them like white rhino when they get out.

No government wants to fund prisons and no government wants to fund a probation service to deal with them once they've been let out. 60% of prisons are currently overcrowded and the reoffending rate is 30%.

There is no guarantee that if Usman Khan had completed his entire sentence that he still wouldn't have gone on to kill people.

I don't have any answers, no one does.

I do think it would be a good start to strip all religious groups of the bizarre special status they have that appears to put them outside the boundaries of normal civil society in the UK. Strip them any political franchise (i.e. House of Lords), strip them off the self-censoring blanket that prevents any real criticism, strip them over the right to start schools and strip of the ability to import people on 'missionary work'.

Religious groups should have the same rights as the local environmental charity no less no more. Could you imagine your local homeless charity getting away with systemic child abuse or the local Alcoholics Anonymous meeting being allowed to advocate for attacks on the local off-license?

Maybe once we're able to ridicule religion in the same way we ridicule the likes of the BNP these people we become fewer.

If someone is proven to be a danger to society (ie, a psychopath, terrorist, paedophile etc.) they should not be at liberty if there is a probability that they will offend.
The only reason there is no solution is because of the liberal attitudes that we are brainwashed into believing are the only attitudes acceptable in a civilised society. I would dispute that.

As to 'ridiculing religion' - you do realise that we've always been able to, and have done, ......that is until one particular 'religion' became more prominent in the western world, - we are now unable to ridicule them because of fear of retribution.
Can you guess which 'religion' that is?

I really couldn't give a shit whether this is a EU law or not, nor what religion he was, but I just find it staggering, that there are people defending the system which allowed these murders to take place. For some, the protection of society seems further down the list than the human rights (whatever they are) of the criminal. You have to wonder if a member of their family had been stabbed on London Bridge whether they would still be bleating on about it. When someone kills another person, as far as I'm concerned whatever human rights they had before committing, are removed immediately.

Again the victims, the family of the victims, justice, punishment and deterrent don't seem to matter much.

Who is defending the system?

Zambo wrote:When someone kills another person, as far as I'm concerned whatever human rights they had before committing, are removed immediately

subsub wrote:

Zambo wrote:When someone kills another person, as far as I'm concerned whatever human rights they had before committing, are removed immediately

Spot on.

ccreds wrote:Do they use Bayes Theorem in crime and stuff.

Jack was proud. Jack was absorbingly intelligent. Jack was fiercely loyal. Jack loved music, art, eating good food with his family, and having more than one pint with his mates. Oh, and in case you haven’t realised by now … he was also devilishly handsome.

But Jack was also angry, frustrated, selfless, stubborn. He was angry because he saw our society failing those most in need. He was frustrated because the political elite have forgotten why it is important to be fair. He was selfless in his dedication to make things right in every second of his life. Jack devoted his energy to the purpose of Learning Together: a pioneering programme to bring students from university and prisons together to share their unique perspectives on justice. Unlike many of us, Jack did not just go to work. He lived and breathed fire in his pursuit of a better world for all humanity, particularly those most in need.

If Jack could comment on his death – and the tragic incident on Friday 29 November – he would be livid. We would see him ticking it over in his mind before a word was uttered between us. Jack would understand the political timing with visceral clarity.

He would be seething at his death, and his life, being used to perpetuate an agenda of hate that he gave his everything fighting against. We should never forget that. What Jack would want from this is for all of us to walk through the door he has booted down, in his black Doc Martens.

That door opens up a world where we do not lock up and throw away the key. Where we do not give indeterminate sentences, or convict people on joint enterprise. Where we do not slash prison budgets, and where we focus on rehabilitation not revenge. Where we do not consistently undermine our public services, the lifeline of our nation. Jack believed in the inherent goodness of humanity, and felt a deep social responsibility to protect that. Through us all, Jack marches on.

Borrow his intelligence, share his drive, feel his passion, burn with his anger, and extinguish hatred with his kindness. Never give up his fight.

To Jack Merritt. Now, and forever.

rorymac wrote:Fantastic words from the guy's father.
I know someone doing the full term because they can't show remorse .. because they are entirely innocent. Convicted under the horrific joint enterprise system.
It's sickening sometimes reading the ignorant black and white bullshit posted on here.

paolo wrote:rumours that it was another of those white supremacists or a nazi

awful situation