Forums
Welcome to Live View – Take the tour to learn more
Start Tour
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
Larry's Codpiece.
31 Dec 09 20:22
Joined:
Date Joined: 03 Dec 06
| Topic/replies: 3,737 | Blogger: Larry's Codpiece.'s blog
There have been some murmerings recently about criminal activity back in the early/mid part of the last century but surely everybody agrees that crime is far higher now than it was then?
Pause Switch to Standard View Are we all agreed that crime rose...
Show More
Loading...
Report unbiased December 31, 2009 9:29 PM GMT
The amount of non white and non British banged up would make bad reading.My source?A prison warden relating their findings,accurate report.
Report Big Charlie January 1, 2010 12:12 AM GMT
Approximately 12% of the UK prison population are immigrants.

Or in round terms - 10,080
Report sap January 1, 2010 1:37 AM GMT
Another racist thread by EO !
Report Larry's Codpiece. January 1, 2010 10:55 AM GMT
sap

I am sorry to see you go down the same route as Dr J. How can this be a racist thread when race isn't even mentioned? Unless of course you are taking his risible stance of, "it isn't there but I know you are at it".

This thread has nothing to do with race and everything to do with some of your friends who when statements are made about high historical crime levels trot out the usual lines about teddy boys, mods, rockers, skin heads etc.

Sadly the left seem unable to differentiate between different simple facts. Yes, some races are disproportionately represented in crime figures. It seems reasonable to posit that our overall crime levels are partially influenced by a breakdown in social cohesion and immigration was a factor in that. However, this thread is an assertion of a simple fact because some of your fellow lefties seem unable to accept it for what it is.

One thing on the issue of race is that crime has gown down since the early 90's, although still at historically huge numbers and yet this government has overseen a huge wave of immigrants coming to our shores. This would undermine anybody making a silly statement that crime is all down to immigration. You simply can't break down complex social phenomena so easily.

You lefties need to grow up a bit and stop slinging mud when you have run out of things to offer a discussion.
Report Barry Conway January 1, 2010 12:02 PM GMT
Perhaps one of the reasons there was less crime in the 50's because there was little or nothing to steal. Thats why everyone claims they were able to leave their door unlocked, in my opinion.
Report Larry's Codpiece. January 1, 2010 12:05 PM GMT
Barry

Amongst many other factors that would have certainly been one in my view.
Report noddys ryde January 1, 2010 12:17 PM GMT
Reasons why there was less crime -

fewer people
more community cohesion-you dont steal from your own
More parential discipline
More discipline in schools.
National service also brought discipline
Stricter punishments if caught-prison harder,sentances longer.
More church going.

All gone due to lax immigration policies,multiculturalism and a breakdown in family and community values.

We never need a comminity cohesion minister in the 1950s-cohesion was taken for granted.
Report blackburn1 January 1, 2010 12:20 PM GMT
Yep, before the liberal handwringers went for rehabilitation rather than punishment, we can all see where thats got us
Report Larry's Codpiece. January 1, 2010 12:58 PM GMT
Noddy's is pretty much on the money and purely by coincidence I am sure but the left was at the forefront cheering on all the things which have brought us low.
Report salmon spray January 1, 2010 1:07 PM GMT
No they weren`t. It was Thatcher`s dog eat dog philosophy that has got us where we are. As she was consciously copying a lot of American ideology it is hardly surprising as crime levels there were much higher.
Report Larry's Codpiece. January 1, 2010 1:26 PM GMT
Salmon

I think you have indulged a little too much over the Christmas period and the actual facts reveal your comment to be the rubbish it is. Crime began to take off in the 50's and from there it was up up and away throughout the 60's and 70's. How was this related to Thatcher?
Report Larry's Codpiece. January 1, 2010 1:32 PM GMT
And that is why those of us who see the pros and cons of Thatcher hold the left's views in contempt because no opportunity however ludicrous is wasted in an attempt to sully her name.
Report salmon spray January 1, 2010 1:40 PM GMT
Crime figures are notoriously unreliable as you well know. Imo attitudes changed during the 80s as people became increasingly treated as expendable commodities. Alienation had always existed in pockets, but it was in the 80s that it became widespread.
Report Larry's Codpiece. January 1, 2010 1:49 PM GMT
Salmon

Once again you are having an opinion and then trying to fit the facts to prove it. In 1954 there were less than 10 indictable offences committed per 1000 people. By the time Thatcher came to power this had risen to over 50 per 1000 people.

You can't wish such facts out of existence.
Report salmon spray January 1, 2010 1:53 PM GMT
What was the number by 1990 please ? Using the same source as I am sure you would.
Report noddys ryde January 1, 2010 1:56 PM GMT
salmon-you sound like lampus.
Report gus January 1, 2010 2:04 PM GMT
Reported crime peaked in 1992 when 109.4 indictable offences
were recorded per thousand population.

http://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/research/rp99/rp99-111.pdf
Report salmon spray January 1, 2010 2:09 PM GMT
I will take that as a compliment noddy`s. But add that I never mention milk.
Report Larry's Codpiece. January 1, 2010 2:38 PM GMT
salmon

What was the number by 1990 please ? Using the same source as I am sure you would.

How is that relevant? You implied that Thatcher and her policies caused the rise in crime. Do you now retract that absurd statement?

Recordable indictable crime fell from 1992 although it is still very high by historical standards. If you have a look at the link provided by gus you will see the peak came off the back of years of a falling prison population. Late Thatcherism saw the high point of the failed experiment with keeping bad guys out of prison. In that respect she does hold a responsibility for the continuing rise of crime which had begun decades before. As soon as the Tories reversed that disastrous policy under Major we reaped the benefits in falling levels of recorded crime.
Report salmon spray January 1, 2010 2:49 PM GMT
I think you are holding an opinion and interpreting the facts to uit it Eo :p
And no I`m not retracting anything.
Report salmon spray January 1, 2010 2:49 PM GMT
* suit of course.
Report Larry's Codpiece. January 1, 2010 3:00 PM GMT
salmon

At least my point is a logical interpretation. Outside of Lampus/Baracouda and Tonkability can you think of anybody else who would make Thatcher guilty of a trend which began in the 50's?

You lefties are priceless.
Report Big Charlie January 1, 2010 3:17 PM GMT
salmon spray 01 Jan 14:40
Crime figures are notoriously unreliable as you well know. Imo attitudes changed during the 80s as people became increasingly treated as expendable commodities. Alienation had always existed in pockets, but it was in the 80s that it became widespread.


Try looking at UK murder stats up to 1965, then see what happend after that.
Report gus January 1, 2010 3:19 PM GMT
looking at the other graphs in the House of Commons reseacrh paper, the nearest match to the Indictable Offences graph appears to be' Police strength, England & Wales', leading to the inevitable conclusion that more oppers = more crimes imo.
Report gus January 1, 2010 3:26 PM GMT
oppers = coppers ... this keyboard is driving me razy ...i an only onlude it's a piee of rap :(
Report zilzal1 January 1, 2010 3:28 PM GMT
yep. you are 2.5 times as likely to get murdered than you were 60 years ago
Report Larry's Codpiece. January 1, 2010 4:27 PM GMT
gus

Only inevitable for someone with advanced senility.
Report baracouda30 January 1, 2010 4:48 PM GMT
You have something in common then what with you thinking I've defended Bliar in the past!
Report flushgordon January 1, 2010 4:49 PM GMT
15 all
Report Larry's Codpiece. January 1, 2010 5:07 PM GMT
baracouda

We only have your word for that and we all know that you lefties are born liars. Where is chippie? 1.01 he would bring up an old thread where you defend Blair's government
Report flushgordon January 1, 2010 5:13 PM GMT
first service
Report baracouda30 January 1, 2010 5:20 PM GMT
You can have a look yourself on gubbed.com.

If you can find me defending Bliar I'll start an apology thread.
Report flushgordon January 1, 2010 5:23 PM GMT
15/30
Report baracouda30 January 1, 2010 5:50 PM GMT
Still searching Codpiece?

1/3 He finds nowt
4/1 He apologises
12/1 He finds 'evidence' in the form of a thread where I didn't call Bliar a vile**bag


Fancy a bit of the 12/1 myself.
Report salmon spray January 1, 2010 5:59 PM GMT
In to 4-1 now.
Report sap January 1, 2010 6:01 PM GMT
EO is a man of great integrity

sap will take the 4/1 for a stake of a penny that he'll apologise.
Report flushgordon January 1, 2010 6:27 PM GMT
eo retires due to injury game set and match barra
6/4 4/6 mr eo could not play on so mr barracoud goes through to the final.
Report alfie255 January 1, 2010 7:13 PM GMT
There are few things funnier than seeing EO get his pomposity**ed...as it appears it's about to be now.
Report Larry's Codpiece. January 1, 2010 7:27 PM GMT
Sorry to disappoint you gents. I've been watching Dr Who. :)

I will check this out and be assured that baracouda will have his apology if it is warranted.
Report master of multys January 1, 2010 7:32 PM GMT
Larry's Codpiece. 01 Dec 21:17
we need to deport every non white man and woman out of the uk and make it clean again vote bnp.


DISGUSTING
Report Larry's Codpiece. January 1, 2010 8:05 PM GMT
baracouda

Interesting site that. I haven't looked at all the threads on Blair and I don't think I need to. You have a full and unreserved apology for consistently sticking to a point of view which was condemnatory of Blair.
Report Larry's Codpiece. January 1, 2010 8:18 PM GMT
alfie

Rest assured that the skin of the righteous remains intact.
Report sap January 1, 2010 8:18 PM GMT
Yeah, my first 4/1 shot winner of the year. Im owed 4 pence but as Im a believer in the redistribution of wealth i'm willing to accept a tax charge of 100%.
Report baracouda30 January 1, 2010 8:32 PM GMT
Thank you Larry.

You have more class than I gave you credit for. Shame about your opinions.

Happy New Year.
Report wizardofoz January 1, 2010 9:46 PM GMT
Just as there is a myth that the next generation of children is always more indisciplined than we were, so there is usually a myth that we live in an age where there is more criminality.

For a start, we live in a more oppresive society and there are now many more laws making criminals of those who drive safely but fast, have a smoke in the wrong place, or hunt, for instance.

Thieving and drunkenness was certainly widespread in the 19th century.

Racecourses only became peaceful after the Second World War. (read the chapter 'Gangsters', by Fairfax-Blakeborough).

The truth is we live in a flabby, cossetted society where television is believed by the numbed brains of most of the populace. Most of the programmes are about fear and laws are constantly being introduced to deal with the latest, largely imaginary, terrors whipped up by the mass media.
Report wizardofoz January 1, 2010 9:47 PM GMT
Television became widespread in the 1950's (back to the thread title) which explains a lot.
Report baracouda30 January 1, 2010 9:50 PM GMT
wizardofoz

Absolutely spot on.
Report treetop January 1, 2010 10:03 PM GMT
I am inclined to agree with the wizard and bara on this one. TV has had a significant impact on crime levels.
Report salmon spray January 1, 2010 10:21 PM GMT
There are odd things that can affect crime figures. I understand car crime has fallen dramatically in recent years. This is almost certainly due to the fact that all cars from the mid 90s onwards were fitted with immobilisers, which will certainly defeat the average joyrider for whom hot-wiring was a simple matter. Try running an old banger with no immobiliser.
Report Lozzy January 1, 2010 10:24 PM GMT
Two reasons

MASS IMMIGRATION

LABOUR becoming a party of Government and being SOFT ON CRIME
Report Larry's Codpiece. January 1, 2010 10:41 PM GMT
wizardofoz

There is something in what you say but I will eat my rather large balls if that accounts for more than a portion of the problem.
Report salmon spray January 1, 2010 11:05 PM GMT
I realise there is no point in talking to you about immigration, but it has already been established on this thread that crime rose under both parties.
Get a grip ffs.
Report Larry's Codpiece. January 1, 2010 11:52 PM GMT
Salmon

How can you be telling somebody to get a grip when you have blamed Thatcher for a rising crime rate which began in the 50's?
Report salmon spray January 1, 2010 11:59 PM GMT
Erm.
So it began in the 50s.
Under Churchill, Eden or Macmillan ?
Report Big Charlie January 2, 2010 12:05 AM GMT
Homicide in England and Wales includes the offences of murder,
manslaughter and infanticide.

The rate of homicides peaked in the mid-1990s. In 1995 14.5
homicides were committed per million of population.

Since the early 1960s the number of homicides per million
population has more than doubled.

In 1901 the average prison population was 15,900.

By 1998 the
figure had increased to 65,300.

There were more prisoners in 1998 than in any other year this century.

UPDATE
It passed 84,000 in 2009, a new record.





http://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/research/rp99/rp99-111.pdf
Report Larry's Codpiece. January 2, 2010 12:10 AM GMT
salmon

Whose watch it began under is something of an irrelevance but one thing is for sure and that is that it wasn't under Thatcher's which was the disputed issue between us if I can remember that far back.
Report salmon spray January 2, 2010 12:17 AM GMT
But that rather begs the question as to why it rose and when it started to gain real momentum.
I stick by my theory that Thatcher`s philosophy and policies led to a jump, but I am quite prepared to accept that it started earlier.
But when and why.
Historically my guess is that the war led to a decrease from the 30s and before. The reasons for that are no doubt complex and I am not going to have a stab at them at this time in the morning.
Goodnight. :)
Report Injera January 2, 2010 8:06 AM GMT
I was talking to a mate the other day. He told me of a story when he was a child at school in the 50s.

He was about 10 yrs old and he and 2 of his friends were called in front of the Head for stealing an apple from the greengrocer in the village.

The lad who grassed them up was actually the one who stole the apple but he dropped the other 3 in it.

The Head wrote a letter to each of the child's parents explaining what their son had done and how unacceptable it was.

It was 1 (one) apple!

Of course, the parents were ashamed and appalled by the actions of their child.

This memory has stayed with my friend all this time.
Report wizardofoz January 2, 2010 8:19 AM GMT
The prison population has increased largely due to the more widespread availability of hallucinogenic drugs.

While drunkenness was a bigger problem around the middle of the 19th century, taking alcohol, or any other drug for that matter, was not a criminal offence. The effects also didn't push so many into serious crime eg burglary, theft, violence, as many drugs do today.
Report Larry's Codpiece. January 2, 2010 9:39 AM GMT
wizard

You seem to be facing several different ways with that point. I find it hard to believe that it was both legal and harder to come by back in the day. Doesn't make much of a case for prohibition. Or perhaps it was just the case that when faced with a choice of poison the majority plumped for alcohol or took hallucinogens in a more responsible manner than the authorities would have us believe is possible?

Although I think that you have once again presented us with a facet of the problem I would suggest that it is prohibition itself which has helped to fuel the problem rather than availability.
Report blackburn1 January 2, 2010 10:07 AM GMT
I have to disagree with you re drugs EO, even though I agree that its personal choice what an individual should be allowed to ingest.

Legalising it would not remove the dealers, there would still be plenty willing to undercut official suppliers, probably with inferior product, meaning that wealthier occasional coke dealers would get the good stuff and the scrotes would still be left with the cheap rubbish.

And more importantly, can you imagine Brown and Mandy negotiating to buy a cargo of crack from the Colombians?
Report wizardofoz January 2, 2010 10:08 AM GMT
Larry "I find it hard to believe that it was both legal and harder to come by back in the day."

Hard to believe, maybe, but it was. Licensing laws and lack of money of the urban poor curbed the excesses of alcohol. It was legal to take ANY drug until late in the 19th century, but getting hold of crack cocaine was impossible, as it didn't exist.
Report alfie255 January 2, 2010 10:47 AM GMT
I'm pretty the sure the state is capable of allocating land for coca production, why would anyone need to deal with drug cartels?
Report blackburn1 January 2, 2010 11:55 AM GMT
alf you are either very naive or on a wind up.

Who is going to run the coca farms - Kenny Noye?
Report alfie255 January 2, 2010 12:24 PM GMT
Err, farmers?
Report blackburn1 January 2, 2010 12:27 PM GMT
At least we've established its naivety rather than humour.

Tell me alf, in the clubs you go to are the toilets full of young men selling brussel sprouts?
Report alfie255 January 2, 2010 12:31 PM GMT
Farmers have been growing it in South America for, I don't know, a few centuries...they manage to grow every other crop on the planet successfully, including tobacco, perhaps you could tell me why they couldn't do the same with coca?
Report blackburn1 January 2, 2010 12:36 PM GMT
Are these the farmers controlled by the cartels alf?

Come on alf, if you lot that want drugs legalised are just going to appoint a couple of blokes in flat caps from Hereford to do it, then you're in trouble. Come up with a plausible way of efficiently running it and you might change some minds, but I've a feeling that one or two people a little bit nastier than you or I might have a say in things.
Report alfie255 January 2, 2010 12:43 PM GMT
I'm under no illusions that a quick shift from prohibition to legalisation would be anything other than extremely difficult, but that's no reason not to do something worthwhile. Growing, refining, transporting and selling a natural crop isn't f*cking rocket science.

It's prohibition that has allowed drugs cartels to grow in size and strength to the extent that they effectively control large swathes of sovereign countries (Mexico) or even form de facto governments in more lawless countries (i.e. some West African states). Despite it being clear that these policies have failed, you want to continue pursuing them instead of taking difficult but positive decisions.
Report blackburn1 January 2, 2010 12:46 PM GMT
Why would it be a positive decision?

We are in an unmanageable position with drugs that would be made worse by legalisation. Nobody has yet to come up with a workable solution, probably because far too much money is tied up in the current operations.
Report alfie255 January 2, 2010 12:56 PM GMT
Positives? Increased tax revenue, job creation, reduce crime, reduce the number of children joining gangs...there's a few for starters.

What's your solution to the problem then? Keep throwing billions of pounds at the problem, something that has been proven to be the equivalent of p*ssing in the wind? Or you could accept that while peopl want to buy drugs, there will always be people that are willing to provide them to make money, regardless of the dangers involved?
Report blackburn1 January 2, 2010 12:59 PM GMT
alf, I've already told you the current situation is unmanageable but legalisation would make it worse for the reasons I've pointed out.

Your wide eyed view of human nature is endearing but unrealistic alf, the people involved in the drug business dont have a great deal in common with you. You must surely see this
Report alfie255 January 2, 2010 1:17 PM GMT
And why would we need to work with criminals? The state can legalise, co-ordinate the growth and transport with other countries then sell it through licensed outlets at a fraction of the current cost. Unless you have any other ideas you can outline?
Report blackburn1 January 2, 2010 1:36 PM GMT
And those currently dealing - will they just get jobs at B&Q?
Report alfie255 January 2, 2010 1:52 PM GMT
Well they'll have to do something, no-one will be interested in buying their overpriced, low quality product.
Report mightymoyes January 2, 2010 1:54 PM GMT
it'll never happen unfortunately. was it not drug money that basically kept the worlds economy from completely crashing recently.
Report alfie255 January 2, 2010 2:00 PM GMT
I think it will in time. The Czech Republic have just decriminalized possession of various quantities of various drugs, following Portugal's successful lead.

http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle/613/czech_republic_decriminalization_amounts

There are rumblings of marijuana decriminalisation in the US as well. It'll take time but sanity will hopefully prevail in the end.
Report noddys ryde January 2, 2010 2:24 PM GMT
mighty-thats right-the Mafia look the opportunity to launder loads of cash last year -the desperate banks turned a blind eye to the niceties. Beggers cant be choosers.
Report Larry's Codpiece. January 2, 2010 2:52 PM GMT
blackburn

I've had plenty of discussions over the years about drugs but I've never had someone using the, "what will the dealers do" argument in an attempt to persuade me.

Your earlier argument about who would win in a price war between the dealers and government doesn't stack up. Government wins every time.
Report zilzal1 January 2, 2010 3:16 PM GMT
Thats a bit radical EO, a government department doing a good job!!, you havent been at the sherry have you??
Report blackburn1 January 2, 2010 3:24 PM GMT
EO, my point is that the dealers wouldn't just roll over.

As I said to alf our present situation isn't good (execution for dealers would improve it) legalisation makes it worse
Report alfie255 January 2, 2010 3:38 PM GMT
Should we run all policies past criminals, so as not to inconvenience them too much then?

You've said many times that legalisation would make a bad situation worse, but you haven't actually suceeded in explaining how yet.
Report zilzal1 January 2, 2010 3:42 PM GMT
The NHS has said that Booze related illness is costing enough now, just imagine what having a larger percentage of people off their skulls half the time would do.
Post Your Reply
<CTRL+Enter> to submit
Please login to post a reply.

Wonder

Instance ID: 13539
www.betfair.com