It is not often you might find these 3 words together.
Forester used as Child Emergency Ambulance was stolen, from outside home of a paramedic, and found burned out. Man arrested but still to be dealt by courts.
Noble Subaru Edinburgh has replaced the car!
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-15449033
Some things put a smile on your face...........what has cheered you up in the last month?
|
>>>what has cheered you up in the last month? In no particular order except the first one:
SWMBO now no longer spending the weekends studying for exams baked cakes and bread on Sunday!
Two cheeky £25 wins on this months Premium Bonds.
Decommissioning the lawn mower for the season (throwing a tarp over it!)
This winter's stock of split logs arriving ready for the open fire.
Wales losing to France in the RWC.
|
On a motoring note, my skanky old Skoda Felicia winter car actually passed the swedish mot without any comments. It has serious rust on every single panel, including the roof. The bottoms of all the doors are nearly gone, and both rear wheels arches have gone.
It has no electric windows, no central locking, no a/c, no cruise, no electric mirrors, and no ESC/DSC/ASP etc. But it does have a cassette plyer (unfortunately I have no cassettes), and heated seats. But I'm still happy it passed.
|
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-16429102
Scumbag druggie got 25 months for stealing & burning out the Children's amblance
|
I have a short fuse where scum are concerned, part of the reason i don't watch too much telly and especially the news, i'd end up bricking the thing.
This twerp, when its finished its prison sentence..is that it?, is the slate wiped clean?, can it go back to its previous likely existence of booze/dole/drugs/mugging/burglary/anything bar a days work and just carry on as if nothings changed, no recompence, no order to pay for a replacement vehicle?
Do magistrates or judges ever invoke full and proper financial restitution, even if its a tenth of its income till paid off for the rest of its miserable useless life it would be right and just that it pays financial restitution, the punishment issue is only that and completely separate imo..
|
No...NO...aaarrrgh!!!
Why for goodness sake not?
|
How?
It has no money, its unfit for honest work, so How?
|
>> How?
>>
>> It has no money, its unfit for honest work, so How?
By attaching an order to any future earnings, inheritance, winnings, benefits or unearned pension until the damages are paid off...even if the bill is never paid, its never gone away either.
As it the whole thing is ludicrous and these types continue their stupid useless lives safe in the knowledge that after a few months in the clink they have paid their dues..ho ho, off we go again.
If they know that damage they cause in their criminal activity will be deducted from them no matter what they do or where they go in the future, then it might mitigate what they do, if it doesn't the bill just keeps increasing, no problem, keep deducting.
If they skip the country, great we don't want them anyway, if they come back or apply for a pension in 40 years time...here's the bill.
One of the most important parts of civilised society is responsibility, both communal and individual, we will never have an all encompassing decent society whilst scum are allowed to do their thing without any cost to them ever.
I for one am sick to the back teeth of paying for ever for useless twerps like this, hit em in the pocket its the only way they will learn.
Last edited by: gordonbennet on Thu 5 Jan 12 at 20:17
|
>>I know of an 18yr old - since turning 18 she has bashed her mum's car off a pillar in a multi-storey carpark (£500).
Vomitted in the back of a taxi (dad paid £40 for cleanup)
Based car on Xmas eve - hit a double decker..........unknown cost
She now thinks it's unfair that she will not be allowed to drive the family car............
Time for an 18.5 yr old to learn in life their are rights and privileges & RESPONSIBILITIES.
|
>> >> How?
>> >>
>> >> It has no money, its unfit for honest work, so How?
>>
>> By attaching an order to any future earnings, inheritance, winnings, benefits or unearned pension until
>> the damages are paid off...even if the bill is never paid, its never gone away
>> either.
I am said said scum, I get a court order to pay against any future earnings.
Am i going to earn anything? nah course not, I am going to carry on in my own sweet way earning nowt and scrounging/thieving/nicking etc etc. Pension? ha! the only pension is the one I nick from some old ladies purse.
Last edited by: Zero on Thu 5 Jan 12 at 21:06
|
Don't believe it Zedman.
I have seen dozens of 'professional benefitters' in the last few months worrying that their benefits are being reduced/revised/removed as a result of the coalition's system changes.
"Sorry pal, the Benefits Agency says your fit to work. Bye".
Last edited by: VxFan on Fri 6 Jan 12 at 00:13
|
>> their benefits are being reduced/revised/removed as a result of the coalition's system changes.
>>
>> "Sorry pal, the Benefits Agency says your fit to work. Bye".
>>
AND NOT BEFORE TIME!
It's often not a case of CANNOT WORK but WON'T WORK
|
I wonder if it would reduce the attraction as a potential 'breeder' if the girls all know you're only getting 80% of your usual income?
One could but dream.
|
Actually Lygoos they are, to a large degree, Labour's changes.
And while unsettling a few cheats they're also causing acute distress to the genuinely disabled - particularly those with mental health and other fluctuating conditions.
|
Plenty of people with "fluctuating" conditions need not be scrap-heaped.
One of the biggest factors affecting life expectancy is whether or not you work.
While Labour, and the preceding Tory govt were in power they paid lipservice to the 'changes' required to benefits.
Basically if someone was unwell/unfit and couldn't do their usual work for 6 months they were automatically bumped onto Incapacity Benefit - it then often took many months until they were assessed for "all work" - by which time they were nicely into the mindset of the chronically out of work.
Ever wondered why you see so many walking sticks being carried by middle aged people in areas of deprivation/high joblessness?
When you have areas of the country where 20% of the working age population are "incapable of work" it's time to get stuck in.
Whenever a decision seems wildly harsh I'll happily support an appeal but there are plenty of people who ham it up for their GP so we're often fairly bad at knowing who can work and who genuinely can't. The number of people I've seen in terrible pain who can leap up to answer the phone during a housecall is impressive.
The key is supporting the people who genuinely believe they are unfit but actually would benefit greatly from having a job - I don't doubt this is not an easy task.
Last edited by: Lygonos on Thu 5 Jan 12 at 22:33
|
Not much "bleating" in the CABs - 90% are getting on with the change I would say, some have or are appealing, some succeed some don't.
There's some real poverty out there.
An interesting issue is the amount of "poor" people with bad credit card debts...
Seems everyone is tightening up, Banks and Utilities trying to get their money back, CSA seems to be really turning the screws, getting working fathers to pay long lost partners and pulling the partners out of benefits.......Someone at the top is shaking the benefit tree very hard.
|
Going back to the original post. Perhaps the ambulance was replaced by an insurance payout?
How did the offender manage to steal the vehicle? Surely the medic didn't leave the keys in it? Did he?
Regarding the other point of reducing offenders benefits etc. It is my understanding that drug addicts are so desperate to get the money for their next fix that they will steal anything from anybody, using any means.
|
>> Going back to the original post. Perhaps the ambulance was replaced by an insurance payout?
Many Large bodies Self-Insure and are only 3rd party
>> How did the offender manage to steal the vehicle? Surely the medic didn't leave the
>> keys in it? Did he?
Broke into HOUSE and stole CARKEYS
>>
>> Regarding the other point of reducing offenders benefits etc. It is my understanding that drug addicts are so desperate to get the money for their next fix that they will
>> steal anything from anybody, using any means.
>>
TRUE - but HE CHOSE TO TAKE DRUGS - YEARS AGO
|
>> TRUE - but HE CHOSE TO TAKE DRUGS - YEARS AGO
>>
FB, I think we are very much in agreement on this.
Yes, he chose to take drugs years ago, but we are where we are today. If we reduce/stop his (or any other drug users) benefits, he/they will simply steal a bit more to get the money for the next fix.
There really isn't an easy answer to this. At least, not in the benefit orientated, non capital punishment society in which we live.
|
The reality of the whole drugs crime issue is that unless we are going to round them all up and dispose of them, then our British Society needs to carry them until they die.
Now this might be in the form of
a. help, counselling etc to let them beat their issues and move onto a "normal" life
b. they continue their life of crime for evermore which over their life will involve
costs associated with prison stays, costs associated with legal works / courts, benefit system, costs associated with any offspring born into the same cycle of life etc etc.
As mentioned before there is no point in fining someone who has no money. Similarly there is no point in locking someone up in the current jails where drugs are rife (although it does get them off the streets)
To tackle this we need much more firmer action and a total change of tactic. Society needs to make the alternatives unpleasant so that they try to change so that means
- chain gangs, and if they fail to honour those conditions,
- solitary confinement in prisons where they have no chance of getting drugs but can get help
- removal of all "human rights" so that lawyers can't jump on bandwagons
Having dealt with many junkies, I have a lot of sympathy for many of them, they did not choose this way of life. Especially if their parents were junkies. But we as a society are not doing as much as we can for them when the options given to them are so attractive as they currently are.
|
You may want to live in a world with no human rights and where you and you can be thrown into solitary confinement or forced to work on a chain gang without any recourse to the law because allegedly you are a drug addict but I'm pretty sure I don't.
|
>> You may want to live in a world with no human rights and where you
>> and you can be thrown into solitary confinement or forced to work on a chain
>> gang without any recourse to the law because allegedly you are a drug addict but
>> I'm pretty sure I don't.
+1
Human rights are meaningless unless they aply to everybody sans exception
|
The war on drugs will never be won, and every penny spent trying to do so might as well be thrown in a hole and buried. Legalise the lot, and give it away for free.
The country spends £2.5bn a year just putting drug addicts through the court system. That's without the cost to property owners and insurance companies replacing items stolen or destroyed. With health and other costs factored in, drug abuse is reckoned to cost this country £16bn a year. This is not only unsustainable, and a complete waste of money, not to mention the quality of life repercussions which don't have a monetary value attached.
Legalising and giving away drugs would stop drug related crime overnight. It would relieve the pressure on the courts. It would cause the drug traffickers and gangs, who really are among the most unpleasant characters imaginable, incredible hardship. It would allow addicts access to help and support at the point of delivery. And it wouldn't cost anything like £16bn a year.
I don't believe it would lead to more drug users either. How many non-drug users can honestly say they are non drug users because it is illegal? The vast majority of people don't smoke or drink to excess, even though it is legal to do so. The same would apply with drugs.
A radical new approach is needed, and rehashing of the same old, tired approach will continue to absorb badly needed public funds, while yielding no tangible result.
|
DP, some good points there.
I may have led a wholly sheltered life, but as a teenager and older, I wouldn't have known a drug if it hit me in the face and I certainly wouldn't have known how to get my hands on any.
Fast forward to now, and I look at the teenagers and the peer pressures etc and if it was readily available over the counter then I suspect that there would be a lot more trying it that wouldn't previously. Lack of availability, legality and consequences put many people off drugs.
If they are available on their local High St, are not illegal and will therefore not interfere with any job, career, prospects etc then I can only see use increasing.
As with cigarettes, as use increase you will then have more people with health issues, more people wanting help to come back off these. Remember they are addictive and as their habit increases, and they can no longer afford it as they have lost their job through being permanently stoned, but their need is still there, we are back where we are now - having crime to feed a habit.
|
I agree it would have to be done very carefully, Bobby.
My thinking is that the substances should be available through clinics only, and from trained medical personnel, and there should definitely be no advertising or marketing
There may well be a slight increase in new users, although I personally doubt this would be significant. I do however believe it would get a lot of existing addicts the help and medical attention they need, as well as the providing the "fix" they need in the short term, without them needing to steal property or line the pockets of organised criminals on what, for most of them, is an indefinite basis broken only by jail, or death.
Financially, I think it would save the country billions, as well as turn lives around that under the current system are basically written off.
To me, it's the kind of thing that politicians would come up with if they were principled instead of career focused. :-)
|
>>My thinking is that the substances should be available through clinics only, and from trained medical personnel, and there should definitely be no advertising or marketing
good point, thought you had meant on the High St. Was just waiting to see how many Clubcard points you got per gram !! :)
|
>> Plenty of people with "fluctuating" conditions need not be scrap-heaped.
I wouldn't regard being legitimately on the sick as scrap-heaped. The sick can still be active. Even if not in employment people can contribute to society through voluntary effort.
But in reality someone like my late sister in law suffering from Bi-Polar disorder is not going to be an attractive prospect for any employer. On her good days she was intelligent, witty and full of insight. But 48hrs later she would be either low and withdrawn to the near catatonic or high, full of wild ideas and grossly offensive to all and sundry.
|
When trying to implement a "get tough" scheme, at the end of the day you are up against the court's decision
www.thescottishsun.co.uk/scotsol/homepage/news/4042165/Thug-too-tooled-up-for-prison.html
|
No politician is going to legalise drugs.
The sensible drug barons make £billions from its illegality. No doubt some clever ones are splashing some small change - the odd £ million - to politicians who campaign against legalisation.
I would - if I were a drug baron. Anonymously and subtly of course.
|
Licence it.
Tax it.
Sell it.
Heroin is very safe if:
1) you what you're doing with it
2) you know what is in the syringe/pipe
Kills less of its users than tobacco does.
|
Subaru Forester III (from 2008) - Generous Subaru Garage - NeilS
