Babies And Bathwater

It's rather important to recognise the difference

The BBC and the Grun aside, everyone agrees that spending must be cut. Now the question is what spending?

And therein lies a considerable risk. The risk is that because we're all in this together, the cuts will be shared out across spending departments pro rata, pretty well irrespective of merit and irrespective of the consequences.

Today's announcement by Ken Clarke that prison no longer works - and by implication prison spending can be cut - is a dismal case in point.

As regular readers will know, we have long been fans of locking up more criminals. As we pointed out in our very first blog on the Cost of Crime, the Home Office has estimated that 100,000 persistent criminals are responsible for half of all our crime. But of that 100,000, only 80,000 are inside at any one time - the rest are out and about creating mayhem. With 80,000 more prison places (ie doubling the existing number of places), we could keep them all inside permanently and halve our crime rate. And the £3-4bn pa costs of the places would be far less than the £80bn odd estimated cost of crime.

According to Ken, prison doesn't work because it can't cure criminals either of their drug habits or their tendency to commit further crime after release. And he certainly has a point. Nothing we've ever seen says anyone knows how to do that with any degree of confidence.

But the idea that community sentences would be a good alternative is pure wishful thinking. In reality, our £1bn pa Probation Services is staffed by Mr Barrowclough's soppy brothers - they're barely capable of tying their own shoelaces let alone supervising a bunch of villains picking up litter (eg this blog). And frankly, we don't believe anyone could do the job successfully.

Our plan is simple - three strikes and you're out (see this blog). If you've already been sentenced to jail twice, on the third offence you're out permanently. Why? Because the stats show that once someone has been sentenced for crime three times, he's more than 50% likely to reoffend:

So prison is most definitely not something we would cut. The first duty of the state - the thing we really do pay our taxes for - is to protect the honest law-abiding citizen. It is unacceptable that cuts should fall there, while aid for space-race India remains untouched.

Which is not to say we couldn't improve the cost efficiency of the prison service. We agree with Ken that £38 grand pa seems like a lot to pay for a year inside. And when you look at the costs of individual prisons you find a huge range. The most expensive cost three times as much per prisoner as the cheapest, and while differing security levels undoubtedly account for some of that, it does suggest some prisons are much more efficient than others.

Actually, I've just been listening to Ken on R4 Today, and the words "back" and "peddling" spring to mind. So we'll see.

As we all understand, these spending cuts are going to be very difficult. But we do expect the government to exercise proper judgement. Sharing the pain is all very well, but we taxpayers have some clear priorities, and we need to see them reflected in the budget allocations. We do not want to find the bath empty of both bathwater and baby.

Gudang grosir baju anak murah - harga pabrik !!
www.gudanggrosiran.com Read More

Bringing The Law Into Disrepute

Free to kill

So let's get this straight.

At God knows what expense, Jamie Bulger's killer was given a new identity and freed into society after just seven years simply because our costly forces of law and order decided he was a reformed character and no longer a danger to us. Only it turns out he wasn't.

Ashleigh Hall's killer was a highly dangerous rapist with a long string of convictions for violent sex offences, who was freed to wander among us simply because our costly forces of law and order decided that putting him on the Sex Offenders Register would be enough to keep us safe. Only it turns out it wasn't.

For many years, our Prog Con "justice" establishment have been assuring us that the "blue rinse brigade" like Tyler are wrong and that violent crime has been falling. Only it turns out it hasn't.

This morning we learn that violent crime has been going through the roof. New research from the independent House of Commons Library (but not yet online for mere taxpayers to see) shows that violence against the person increased from 618,417 in 1998 to 887,942 last year - a massive 44% rise.

As BOM readers will know (eg see this blog) there are two ways of measuring the overall incidence of crime. The government's preferred measure is the British Crime Survey (BCS), and that records an apparent 40% fall in crime over the same period. But the BCS is no more than an elaborate opinion poll, and suffers from all the usual infelicities (and spin) of polling. Most of us would prefer to rely on the actual police recorded crime stats, which is what this new research uses.

Unfortunately, the police stats have been subject to two changes in recording and compilation methodology since Labour came to power. That has been very convenient for the Prog Con lobby (such as the BBC's Rev Easton), because it has allowed them to focus their coverage on the opinion poll, and deride bigots like Tyler for ignoring "the facts".

The significance of this new research is that it has been able to adjust the police stats for the most recent of the methodological changes, and give us a consistent comparison over the whole period from 1998. (Note too that the adjustment is taken from figures supplied by the Home Office - it hasn't simply been plucked from the air).

So, a convicted killer was released among us despite still being a danger. A convicted serial rapist was released to kill another innocent victim. Violent crime is rising all around us. And our so-called "Justice" Secretary justifies his own silence on a matter of grave public concern on the basis that anything else "would not be in the public interest".

Well, mate, excuse me, but we are the friggin' public, and we feel quite grown up enough to decide for ourselves what's in our interest.

The truth is that our criminal justice industry treats the public with contempt. We may pay £19bn pa for the police, £7bn pa for the courts and their lawyers, and £5bn pa for our prisons, but those that run them think they are perfectly free to pursue their own agendas. Instead of running things as we'd like, they spend hundreds of millions - of our friggin' money - trying to snow us with propaganda that crime is mainly inside our own heads. Underneath those blue rinses.

But there is a terrible consequence brewing up. When people lose confidence in the official justice system, they start looking to alternatives. Vigilante justice for Jamie Bulger's killers would be just the start.

PS Yes, I realise the Prog Con are suggesting that Ashleigh Hall would still be alive if the police had done their job properly. If they'd not allowed registered sex offender Chapman (picture) to "slip off their radar", then all would have been well. But in reality, the police are not capable of keeping track of these people. Someone determined to slip the net can do so. Which is why we should pursue a failsafe policy of keeping people like Chapman locked away. Most of us care far more about keeping the public safe, and maintaining public confidence in the justice system, than we do about the vague theological possibility of personal redemption.

Gudang grosir baju anak murah - harga pabrik !!
www.gudanggrosiran.com Read More

Relax - They're Only Murderers

So let's get this straight. For some reason the Major and I haven't quite been able to fathom, Mr Barrowclough decided to let out convicted murderer Patricia Gillette to go shopping in Bromley. Amazingly, she legged it, and is now on the loose among us.

Well, maybe it's not so bad. Maybe she's one of those unlucky moment-of-madness type murderers, rather than a full-on hardcore headcase.

No. Det Supt Gary Gornell has issued the following urgent warning to the public:

"This individual is dangerous and we need to apprehend her as soon as possible. If anyone sees her, please don't approach her, but call police immediately."

Still, hopefully you won't be the one who'll encounter Ms Gillette up that dark alley. So everything will be fine.

Although come to think of it, you may encounter convicted murderer Brian Clayton. Despite the fact that he'd already absconded once before, Mr Barrowclough decided to let him out to go shopping in Solihull last month. Amazingly, Clayton legged it, and is now on the loose among us.

Police say he is also dangerous and anyone seeing him should dial 999 immediately.

Of course, convicted murderers don't have to escape in order to come back among us. Loads of them just get let out on parole.

Yesterday we heard how convicted murderer Mark Shirley was released last year, and within months was attempting to re-enact the horrific murder for which he had been jailed.

"Giving evidence, the victim fought back tears as she relived the "disgusting" attack. She said Shirley repeatedly alluded to his murder victim, but she had no idea what he was talking about.

She said: "He said he once knew a lady, a sweet lady and her name was Mary. He kept saying I was a trustable and sweet lady like her." She told the court that he said he was going to “cut me to make me smell as sweet as Mary.”

The woman said Shirley raped and sexually assaulted her on her own kitchen table. The attack stopped only when the woman’s son returned home, and Shirley fled."

It is absolutely outrageous. The only reason this poor woman had to go through this is because the hand wringing liberals who preside over our criminal "justice" system quite deliberately released a convicted murderer into our midst. A murderer. Not a pick-pocket or a TV licence dodger, but a convicted MURDERER.

And what do these arrogant humbugs have to say for themselves?

"Mr Shirley's case has been referred to the Parole Board review committee. The review committee will consider and identify what lessons can be learnt from this case in order to help prevent further such incidents."

We can save them the time.

There is only one lesson, and it is this: convicted murderers should never ever be allowed out.

Either on parole or on shopping trips.

Is that so hard to understand?

Gudang grosir baju anak murah - harga pabrik !!
www.gudanggrosiran.com Read More

More Cost Ineffective Justice

Violent crime now even worse than unthinkably thought in 2000*

Returning from a couple of days sans broadband, we've been catching up with the Village Postmaster.

He and his family have suffered what's officially categorised as a high trauma crime - robbery in their own home. But we're pleased to see they're back up and running, and they've clearly had huge support from their customers and the local community. After 50 years of soft criminal justice and corrosive welfare dependency, it's reassuring to know some bits of Britain remain unbroken.

At least the police do seem to be taking it seriously. They told the VP that the raid on his store was one of many - the night after his own raid, three more retailers in the county suffered the same fate, quite likely at the hands of the same gang. They really do need to hunt down these scum before somebody gets hurt.

But then what? We return to the same question we asked initially - why do we have to tolerate people like this among us? Why can't we just lock them away for good?

As we've blogged many times, the Home Office has previously estimated* that half of all serious crime is committed by around 100,000 persistent offenders. Each one commits an average of 90 serious crimes every year. Yes, that's right - 90 (see here).

But of those 100,000, only 20,000 are in prison at any one time. The rest are out among us, free to crack on - robbing the VP in his own home, raping, pillaging, whatever takes their fancy.

The obvious solution is to build another 80,000 prison places (doubling the current number) and keep these persistent offenders inside. Permanently.

At the current average £40 grand per place, that would cost us £3.2bn pa, £1bn of which we could get by abolishing the useless probation service (eg see this blog). And by using a little imagination, we could substantially reduce the cost (Tyler Senior favours doing a deal with the Russians for some of their underutilised correctional facilities).

It all seems so obvious to Tyler, the Major, and a host of ordinary people out here in the real world. So why don't we do it?

We know why: our wibbly Prog Con elite - who rarely experience serious high trauma crime themselves - persistently block any such moves. People like Aaronovitch, Finkelstein, and Easton, are forever telling us we are Daily Mail moral panickers, and we are in denial about the true facts (eg see here and here). For is it not the case that the government's official crime statistics show a continuing fall in serious crime?

To which our response has always been that the published official crime stats are so massaged and manipulated that they're not worth the eco-friendly recycled paper they're printed on. And in the last couple of days we've had yet more proof.

First, Denis O’Connor, Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Constabulary, has confirmed something we've blogged before - namely that the police are systematically under-recording crimes of violence:

"The plight of battered wives and other incidences of violence are being ignored by police. A third of the violent offences which were not recorded as crimes should have been...

Among the cases was that of one force which recorded that “no crime” had taken place when a woman’s partner slapped her, grabbed her by the neck and threw her on the floor, leaving her battered and bruised. The officers wrote that the victim would say that she had injured herself and that her partner’s account was “more accurate”...

In another incident, a man was knocked to the ground by a blow behind his ear. He was then kicked in the body. He needed six stitches in his head. The officer said he found the circumstances unusual and that the man might have been under the influence of alcohol when he fell. Mr O’Connor’s report said the incident should have been recorded as grievous bodily harm."

According to O’Connor, "the drive to meet government targets could be one reason why officers were failing to record offences".

You don't say.

Second, Policy Exchange have unearthed some unpublished Home Office research showing that the number of hardened offenders has increased alarmingly since the data summarised above:

This new study identifies 350,000 high-rate persistent criminals, who each commit around 260 crimes a year on average. That compares to the 155,000 identified in the earlier Home Office report* - a massive increase. And the number of active offenders overall now stands at an estimated 1.6 million (compared to 1.2 million earlier).

Alarmingly, it is in crimes of violence that the situation has deteriorated most.

The chart above is taken from a confidential crime report produced by Lord Birt for Tony Bliar in 2000. It shows what Birt thought would happen to violent crime by 2010 if the historic trend continued.

But although the chart was designed to shock, Birt was too optimistic. Even though we haven't yet reached 2010, according to the latest HO stats, recorded offences of violence against the person are already running well above the three-quarters of a million extrapolated by Birt. And that's despite the police fiddling the numbers.

But forget hopeless Labour - despite their neat slogans, they've always been useless on crime, and surely we all knew that really. The key question now is what is hug-a-hoodie Cam going to do about it?

I'm afraid I know. And it's not good news.

He's going to say, yes all this crime is a terrible indictment of 13 years of Labour misrule. Yes, indeed. And I'd like to help - I really would. But unfortunately there's no money. Cuh! What can you do?

Which is simply not good enough.

Because quite apart from the high trauma regularly inflicted on innocent hard-working families like the VP's, the Home Office itself reckons the loss and damage to property is now running at well over £100bn pa. Which makes the prison bill look like peanuts.

It's time. Broken Britain or not, we demand some proper cost effective justice.

*Footnote The earlier Home Office research was summarised in Lord Birt's thinking the unthinkable 2000 report for Bliar's Strategy Unit "A new vision for the Criminal Justice System" (see here). Including those 100,000 active persistent offenders who commit 50% of all serious crime, it said there were 1.2 million "active offenders". 155,000 of them were "high rate" offenders each carrying out an average of 250 - yes, 250 - crimes a year.

Gudang grosir baju anak murah - harga pabrik !!
www.gudanggrosiran.com Read More

Village Postmaster Meets The Scumbags

We still need a lot more of these

As we know, sub-postmasters are in the frontline against violent crime.

Last January, we blogged the shocking murder of Craig Hodson-Walker during an armed robbery on his family's post office/general store in the Midlands. Later the same month we blogged another armed robbery on a post office in Berkshire during which the postmaster was badly beaten.

Now today, BOM's old friend the Village Postmaster has been robbed by three thugs who broke into his shop in the early hours of this morning. He and his wife were woken by the shop's alarm system and actually interrupted the raid. But far from fleeing, the robbers responded with threats and violence.

The VP will doubtless blog this grim experience himself, once he's got his shop back in operation (itself no small matter), but we are feeling very angry.

Why should responsible law-abiding citizens have to tolerate violent scumbags smashing down the door and helping themselves? Why should they have to accept being threatened in their own homes?

We demand a criminal justice system that protects us against this. We demand a justice system where punishment for serious crime is far more severe.

The reason is very simple: with low detection rates (25% or less), unless the punishment for those who do get caught is severe, there is no deterrence.

And we also want three-strikes-and-you're-out. As we blogged here, the evidence is that, once anyone has been convicted three times, there's a greater than 50% chance of him reoffending within two years of release. Indeed, for released prisoners, the reoffending rate is 65%. It is outrageous that the law-abiding majority have to accept a risk like that in the name of... well, what?

We'll be following the police investigation into the Postmaster's robbery very closely, and let's hope the police can track down those responsible before they do it again (you can bet this was not a first offence).

Also, the trial of those accused of murdering Craig Hodson-Walker is currently underway. If there are convictions, we will expect these people to be locked away for ever.

No ifs, no buts.

PS The latest outburst by Keir Starmer, the Director of Public Prosecutions, precisely illustrates why we've got into this mess. He reckons the Tories' plan to replace the notorious European Human Rights Act with a British Bill of Rights will bring "shame" on Britain. WTF? We'd always imagined the DPP's job was banging up bad guys, not politicking for "human rights". Anyone would think Starmer was a former Human Rights Lawyer of the Year. Why can't we have prosecutors who actually want to prosecute?

Gudang grosir baju anak murah - harga pabrik !!
www.gudanggrosiran.com Read More

Your Life In Their Hands

Just thank God they weren't waiting outside your local shop

As we've blogged many times, the Major and I do not believe our criminal "justice" system does nearly enough to deter violent crime. We believe it risks the safety of millions of innocent people who don't have the good fortune to live in Hampstead or the leafy glades of Surrey.

But for decades now, people like us have been over-ruled by those in charge of our affairs. First, they abolished the ultimate deterrent we don't blog any more, and then they watered down its replacement so far that its deterrent effect was completely undermined.

Frankly, we try not to blog this too often because it makes us so angry.

But here we go again, with another set of totally inadequate sentences imposed on two thugs responsible for the brutal murder of Michael Eccles:

"The 43-year-old father of five had popped down the road to buy a bottle of wine when he encountered Jordan Carroll and Carl Keatley, who had been drinking vodka all day. They attacked him, kicking, punching and stamping on him, and leaving him with a burst eye socket, 10 broken ribs and broken bones in his neck."

And the sentences?

Both got "life", but in Carroll's case that actually means a "minimum" sentence of just 11 years, while Keatley will be out and about again in 13 years.

Michael Eccles' family are very angry:

"We were promised a life sentence. The only people receiving a life sentence are the family.

These evil people have been found guilty of murder and shown no remorse at all. Until there are some serious consequences to their actions, the anti-social element will continue their reign of terror.

True justice should be an eye for an eye, and at the very least, life should mean life. These people should not be free to inflict evil ways upon society again."

Who could possibly disagree?

Except for those in charge of criminal "justice" of course. The very same people who had allowed these two animals to remain on the streets even though they were both well known to police, one had 15 previous court appearances, and the other was out on bail in connection with an earlier attack.

Which brings us to another of this week's cases:

"A serial sex offender once described as "appallingly evil" was handed a life sentence for a second time on Friday.

David McMillan, 33, admitted trying to lure a 14-year-old girl to his flat - 12 years after he was jailed for breaking into the home of an elderly spinster and raping her."

But despite the fact that he's "appallingly evil", and despite the fact that this is his second life sentence, his minimum sentence has been set at just 18 months.

Yup. 18 months.

Ah, you say, maybe he's not absolutely appallingly evil. After all, he's not a murderer. Yet. And he didn't actually succeed in luring this 14-year-old to his flat.

Yeah. Right.

The real point is that, these days, life sentences just don't do what it says on the tin. It is the maximum penalty the law can impose, and yet nobody believes it will amount to much more than what you'd get for putting the wrong stuff in your recycling bin.

As we've noted before, when capital punishment was abolished (against the wishes of 75% of us), we punters were promised a deal: henceforth, life would mean life. But these days, even for murder, "life" has actually come to mean an average of just 14 years. Our parole system releases convicted murderers sentenced to life imprisonment after an average of just 14 years.

14 years.

It just isn't good enough.

Lives are being put at risk. Maybe not round your way, or down here in leafy Surrey, or next door to the Major. But out on those problem estates people need some protection. And if they don't get it from our mainstream politicos, they're going to look elsewhere.

PS There are places that make much wider use of life sentences. In California, one Enrique Gonzalez risks a life sentence, being "charged with aggravated mayhem after he tattooed a paw print onto his son’s hip". A life sentence for a tattoo? "Gonzalez is a member of a local gang called the Bulldogs, and the paw print is considered a symbol of membership." Ah, gangs. Although it still sounds a little harsh to British ears, and if you can get life for tattooing your son, WTF do you get for murder? Er... yes... that's right... that thing we don't blog any more. Although we might just mention that the California homicide rate trebled in the years following its abolition, and then more than halved again following reinstatement. But that's probably a pure coincidence, as many commenters have insisted before.

Gudang grosir baju anak murah - harga pabrik !!
www.gudanggrosiran.com Read More

Compassion Rage

Our compassionate criminal justice system allowed him to kill three times

The Major has just been round to give me another earful.

"Why do we have to put up with it? Why should we let a bunch of pinko do-gooders put our lives at risk? We simply don't need these convicted cannibal killers on the loose!

Do you realise that this animal had already killed some poor girl with a hammer in 1993? So WTF was he ever released? Who ever thought that was a good idea? I mean most of us would have strung him up there and then, but no - he was packed off to hospital and was out and about in well under ten years. And then, guess what - he murdered two other people! And one of them he actually ate! Gah!"

"Well, Major, I'm sure your do-gooders were only doing their best."

"Best!?! WTF do we let convicted killers out at all? Even if these days we're not allowed to top them, they should never ever be allowed out to kill again! What is the point?"

"It's compassion, Major. Just like the Scots showed when they released that Libyan chap."

The Major snarled and turned a deeper shade of purple. "Are you trying to provoke me, Tyler? We should have handed that murdering bastard over to the yanks in the first place - they'd have sorted him out. No question of compassionate release then!

And what about those two young thugs torturing kiddies up in Doncaster? Torturing them! Do you realise those two were well known to the police, and they'd already done precisely the same thing before. But somehow the do-gooders thought it perfectly OK to leave them free to carry on terrorising the neighbourhood! It defies belief!"

"Ah yes, Major, but you have to remember that social workers aren't miracle workers. You have to expect the odd mistake here and there."

"Odd mistake? Odd mistake!!! Why??? Why take the risk? Why not just admit we have no idea how to reform these violent animals, and all we can sensibly do is to lock them away? Why not do that? At least the rest of us would then be safe."

"Hmmm.... yes... but then, you see, people would say we weren't compassionate."

*****

As we've blogged many times, when it comes to criminals who are prepared to inflict violence on others, we need to follow the precautionary principle. Which says they get locked up for good.

Because we have no idea how to reform such people, or even how to manage them in the outside world. They need to be locked away.

And it's no good blaming the individual social workers, or the individual police officers, or any other individuals involved in making the wrong calls in particular cases. It is our criminal justice system that is at fault. It fails to follow the precautionary principle.

As for compassion, it is surely far more important to have compassion for the victims of violence than for the delicate sensibilities of our ruling elite.

Anyone who wants to hold a position of authority in our criminal justice system needs to understand and accept one very important point: his/her own personal craving to be seen as "compassionate" has to come behind the responsibilities to the rest of us. And if that doesn't suit, he/she needs to find another job.


PS While we're on the subject, BBC R5 has just carried an extraordinary interview with Detective Chief Inspector Mark Hooper, who heads the Vehicle Crime Intelligence Service for the Association of Chief Police Officers.

He had some official police advice for potential victims of vehicle theft. It seems that when you go to bed you should make sure that you leave your car keys somewhere visible and easily accessible.

Why? Because your local car thief may get irritated if he can't easily find them when he visits your home at 2am. He may come up to your bedroom and threaten you with a shooter or machete. Things could get awkward. Much better to let him take the car quietly and professionally while you sleep.

After due consideration, the Major and I would like to offer an alternative suggestion: we should toughen up the law so that anyone convicted of theft with violence is subjected to a hideous medieval punishment. Our initial thoughts include flaying alive and/or transportation to Helmand province. Although at a pinch I suppose we might settle for a twenty year jail sentence with no possibility of parole.

You see, we reckon we ought to stand up to criminals - not bend over backwards to make their lives easier.

Gudang grosir baju anak murah - harga pabrik !!
www.gudanggrosiran.com Read More