OT: The inability to fail
abd08
Complete OT, but something that has been bothering me for a while. I
am keeping this directed to the UK to keep things simple.
In the UK, there is no ability to fail. I mean this in the simplest
sense of not having food, water, or shelter (I think most of the world
defines it this way)
You can go bankrupt, rob, steal, murder, drive without insurance, but
your bottom line is:
1. Go to jail - you get food and shelter (amongst other things)
2. Council home/dole etc.
Human rights mean that jail is no longer jail in the traditional sense
(think old testament).
If you are at the bottom of the food chain, why shouldn't you rob, do
drugs, work for cash, drive w/out insurance? What are they going to
do? Jails are full - so you're not going in there. Pay a fine? how? no
job remember? Force them to start paying? Just go bankrupt again, or
pay 20p a month for the next 20 years.
I guess what I am (rather sarcastically) driving at, is that as a
society we have a fundamental belief that we should support our fellow
man, which is admirable. However, when that fellow man understands
that no matter what he/she does, he/she cannot "fail", you get what we
have today.
Human rights vs Society rights
So people... what's the solution? We seem to have a society-wide free
rider problem!
Raj
PS: To all the Daily Mail readers - this is NOT some sort of class
war, just a (hopefully) intellectual discussion.
Paul Cummins
<d97105f8-d35a-4e49...@c34g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
deja...@hotmail.com (abd08) wrote:
> Human rights mean that jail is no longer jail in the traditional
> sense
What would you say is the traditional sense of "jail" then?
What is the purpose of prison?
--
Paul Cummins - Always a NetHead
Wasting Bandwidth since 1981
Gary Baldi
>
> What is the purpose of prison?
>
There is no purpose.
You abolish it and bring in a 3 strikes and you're out system.
By "out" I mean executed.
It's actually very simple if it weren't for the bleeding hearts
liberals who seem to push the "human rights" bit without ever
considering the "human responsibilities" side of things.
If you're not contributing to society then, by definition, you're
detracting from it.
Paul Cummins
<4e436903-f3e8-44be...@k23g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>,
tim.ri...@gmx.com (Gary Baldi) wrote:
> If you're not contributing to society then, by definition, you're
> detracting from it.
I see.
Do you know how much UK prisoners contribute to society? Or are you just
blowing smokemout of your arse?
Gary Baldi
>
> Do you know how much UK prisoners contribute to society?
Nope.
Please enlighten us all.
But don't post a link to a Home Office site showing us all how well
prison works.
Paul Cummins
<929b7179-f8ea-451a...@r5g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
tim.ri...@gmx.com (Gary Baldi) wrote:
> Nope.
>
> Please enlighten us all.
As an example, prisoners at HMP Redditch manufacture various items sold
to the likes of you and me, such as uPVC double glazing units for various
companies, items for B&Q and Halfords and many other things.
They do this at a piece rate of 0.012p per item! That's even cheaper than
China.
Likewise, at HMP Usk (a specialist Sex Offender unit) they re-manufacture
various seized goods, allowing them to be re-sold through charity shops
in Wales and beyond, without offending the copyright holders of the
counterfeited products.
In Open prisons, more than 50% of the prisoners will either be working
full time, contributing to the local economy, or working in voluntary
services.
Even in a closed prison, food supply, prison shop, cleaning, laundry, and
various other services are all done by the prisoners, not by the staff.
At least three A cat prisons have prisoners teaching other prisoners for
GCSE and A level qualifications, and Prisoners run the "basic skills"
provision in pretty much every prison.
Remember, the purpose of prison is as punishment, not for punishment. The
punishment of prison is the removal of your liberty, no more, no less.
And anyway, what is this three strikes bollocks? If killing is wrong (we
imprison murderers) then it's wrong, whoever does it, surely? Are we not
debating this about the chinese execution this morning?
Gary Baldi
> And anyway, what is this three strikes bollocks? If killing is wrong (we
> imprison murderers) then it's wrong, whoever does it, surely?
Of course not.
Killing a healthy animal, for example, is wrong.
Killing an animal dying of cancer is right.
Killing an innocent civilian is wrong,
Killing someone with 3 convictions for burglary (which, by definition,
given our police forces low detection rates means he/she has committed
probably 100 such offences for each conviction) is right.
You DO see that, don't you? Please tell me you do?
Paul Cummins
<a4d208c1-8fca-439b...@e27g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
tim.ri...@gmx.com (Gary Baldi) wrote:
> Killing someone with 3 convictions for burglary (which, by
> definition,
> given our police forces low detection rates means he/she has
> committed
> probably 100 such offences for each conviction) is right.
If the state has the right to kill him for this, it has the
responsibility to show that, on each previous conviction, it has provided
every assistance to the offender to change their ways.
Imprisonment alone does nothing for that responsibility.
Once the state who wants to kill the burglar can prove that, I might
start seeing it your way.
But I doubt it.
After all, if three strikes for burglary, then why not three strikes for
speeding, or for TV licence evasion, or for non-payment of council tax,
rent, bills, etc? Where do you stop?
Steve Firth
> As an example, prisoners at HMP Redditch manufacture various items sold
> to the likes of you and me, such as uPVC double glazing units for various
> companies, items for B&Q and Halfords and many other things.
Have you any insight about what they do at HMP Winchester?
Steve Firth
> Killing a healthy animal, for example, is wrong.
Not when the objective is bacon it isn't.
Paul Cummins
%steve%@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth) wrote:
> *From:* %steve%@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth)
> *Date:* Tue, 29 Dec 2009 19:45:40 +0000
Regrettably, that information isn't available online...
Mr Pounder
"Paul Cummins" <uset...@stedphone.invalid> wrote in message
news:memo.2009122...@none.gstgroup.homeip.net...
> In article
> <929b7179-f8ea-451a...@r5g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
> tim.ri...@gmx.com (Gary Baldi) wrote:
>
>> Nope.
>>
>> Please enlighten us all.
>
> As an example, prisoners at HMP Redditch manufacture various items sold
> to the likes of you and me, such as uPVC double glazing units for various
> companies, items for B&Q and Halfords and many other things.
>
> They do this at a piece rate of 0.012p per item! That's even cheaper than
> China.
>
> Likewise, at HMP Usk (a specialist Sex Offender unit) they re-manufacture
> various seized goods, allowing them to be re-sold through charity shops
> in Wales and beyond, without offending the copyright holders of the
> counterfeited products.
>
> In Open prisons, more than 50% of the prisoners will either be working
> full time, contributing to the local economy, or working in voluntary
> services.
>
> Even in a closed prison, food supply, prison shop, cleaning, laundry, and
> various other services are all done by the prisoners, not by the staff.
> At least three A cat prisons have prisoners teaching other prisoners for
> GCSE and A level qualifications, and Prisoners run the "basic skills"
> provision in pretty much every prison.
>
> Remember, the purpose of prison is as punishment, not for punishment. The
> punishment of prison is the removal of your liberty, no more, no less.
>
>You have actually defended these cunts.
You disgust me ............ FOAD.
Mr Pounder
abd08
>
> What is the purpose of prison?
>
> --
> Paul Cummins - Always a NetHead
> Wasting Bandwidth since 1981
I think the answer to both your questions would be that it should be
an unpleasant place which in turn functions as a deterrent should the
person think of offending again.
Personally I would not define loss of liberty in itself as a deterrent
- it is the living conditions themselves which will determine this.
Now what conditions... depending on the level of offence, repeat
offender etc, you would go from something like what you have today to
small cell, no view, forced labour, shared toilets, solitary
confinement etc etc.
It is only *relatively* recently that people have taken the line that
prison is a place for reform - but then why reform? Not when *if* you
get caught, they'll just "reform" you again! Again, I restate, people
are like animals.... they only understand tangible consequences, and
people now know it's all a big bluff (spelling?!?).
Paul Cummins
<056a967a-ea82-4948...@j14g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
deja...@hotmail.com (abd08) wrote:
> you would go from something like what you have today to
> small cell, no view, forced labour, shared toilets,
Most of that is what prisoners today have...
Colin Trunt
"abd08" <deja...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:d97105f8-d35a-4e49...@c34g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
There is no problem.
Why would you want people to fail?
That is a very strange notion I must admit.
Ste
> Hi all,
>
> Complete OT, but something that has been bothering me for a while. I
> am keeping this directed to the UK to keep things simple.
>
> In the UK, there is no ability to fail. I mean this in the simplest
> sense of not having food, water, or shelter (I think most of the world
> defines it this way)
I think you seem to be saying that the British state does not execute
a man and all his blood relations when he commits a crime. Yes, to
that extent, one "cannot fail" in the UK.
> You can go bankrupt, rob, steal, murder, drive without insurance, but
> your bottom line is:
>
> 1. Go to jail - you get food and shelter (amongst other things)
> 2. Council home/dole etc.
>
> Human rights mean that jail is no longer jail in the traditional sense
> (think old testament).
Jail never was jail. Standards in prison have always been commensurate
with the standards of wider society. A few years ago a prison in
Israel quelled riots from something like one- a day to zero in the
following year, just by the introduction of televisions in cells. And
it might be nice to think that the inmates were having a hard time
before TV, and learning their lessons, but in fact both staff and
inmates were simply being brutalised.
As to the Old Testament, certainly Rehoboam referred to putting away
the whip and bringing out the scorpion, but the problem was that men
who had been chastised by the scorpion did not then fear being
chastised by the whip. Certainly, you should actually read the Old
Testament, instead of just inviting us to think about it.
> If you are at the bottom of the food chain, why shouldn't you rob, do
> drugs, work for cash, drive w/out insurance? What are they going to
> do? Jails are full - so you're not going in there. Pay a fine? how? no
> job remember? Force them to start paying? Just go bankrupt again, or
> pay 20p a month for the next 20 years.
>
> I guess what I am (rather sarcastically) driving at, is that as a
> society we have a fundamental belief that we should support our fellow
> man, which is admirable. However, when that fellow man understands
> that no matter what he/she does, he/she cannot "fail", you get what we
> have today.
Actually you get what you have today when your fellow man understands
that he cannot succeed except by criminal means.
> Human rights vs Society rights
>
> So people... what's the solution? We seem to have a society-wide free
> rider problem!
Indeed. I often refer to them as "the rich'n'powerful".
AlanG
<tim.ri...@gmx.com> wrote:
>On Dec 29, 6:53�pm, useth...@stedphone.invalid (Paul Cummins) wrote:
>>
>> What is the purpose of prison?
>>
>
>There is no purpose.
>
>You abolish it and bring in a 3 strikes and you're out system.
>
>By "out" I mean executed.
>
>It's actually very simple if it weren't for the bleeding hearts
>liberals who seem to push the "human rights" bit without ever
>considering the "human responsibilities" side of things.
So what do you do about those criminals who never get prosecuted
because they work for the state?
AlanG
<tim.ri...@gmx.com> wrote:
>On Dec 29, 7:31�pm, useth...@stedphone.invalid (Paul Cummins) wrote:
>
>> And anyway, what is this three strikes bollocks? If killing is wrong (we
>> imprison murderers) then it's wrong, whoever does it, surely?
>
>Of course not.
>
>Killing a healthy animal, for example, is wrong.
No it 's not.
Healthy animals are killed every day and a vet has to certify them as
healthy first. Unless you'd like to hack a bit off a live cow for your
burger?
>
>Killing an animal dying of cancer is right.
>
>Killing an innocent civilian is wrong,
>
>Killing someone with 3 convictions for burglary (which, by definition,
>given our police forces low detection rates means he/she has committed
>probably 100 such offences for each conviction) is right.
How about killing speeders and people who park on pavements?
>
>You DO see that, don't you? Please tell me you do?
Just what is it you are smoking?
abd08
> Why would you want people to fail?
> That is a very strange notion I must admit.
It is not that I want anyone to fail, it's just that no matter how you
behave as an individual in society, you will always be given food and
shelter.
Out of interest, *is* there any real way to lose the above?
If not, then short of massive stigma in society itself, we're pretty
boned.
abd08
> I think you seem to be saying that the British state does not execute
> a man and all his blood relations when he commits a crime. Yes, to
> that extent, one "cannot fail" in the UK.
Uh, no - my definition is that one cannot lose food and shelter
regardless of conduct. This could be wrong btw, please correct me.
> Jail never was jail. Standards in prison have always been commensurate
> with the standards of wider society. A few years ago a prison in
> Israel quelled riots from something like one- a day to zero in the
> following year, just by the introduction of televisions in cells. And
> it might be nice to think that the inmates were having a hard time
> before TV, and learning their lessons, but in fact both staff and
> inmates were simply being brutalised.
This is where it gets tricky - loss of liberty in itself I would argue
is not much of a deterrent *if* you have access to something like a
TV. Then at what point does it become brutalised? You can't have
respect and dignity on the one hand, and then expect prison to
function as a deterrent on the other can you?
> As to the Old Testament, certainly Rehoboam referred to putting away
> the whip and bringing out the scorpion, but the problem was that men
> who had been chastised by the scorpion did not then fear being
> chastised by the whip. Certainly, you should actually read the Old
> Testament, instead of just inviting us to think about it.
You're right, I am no expert, but that isn't really relevant here. I
was trying to make a simple allegory between how we see punishment
today, and what could be argued as a harsher/tougher/less forgiving
environment.
> > If you are at the bottom of the food chain, why shouldn't you rob, do
> > drugs, work for cash, drive w/out insurance? What are they going to
> > do? Jails are full - so you're not going in there. Pay a fine? how? no
> > job remember? Force them to start paying? Just go bankrupt again, or
> > pay 20p a month for the next 20 years.
>
> > I guess what I am (rather sarcastically) driving at, is that as a
> > society we have a fundamental belief that we should support our fellow
> > man, which is admirable. However, when that fellow man understands
> > that no matter what he/she does, he/she cannot "fail", you get what we
> > have today.
>
> Actually you get what you have today when your fellow man understands
> that he cannot succeed except by criminal means.
If what you're saying is that there are no other options, then why
choose to have more children and carry on the cycle? Or at least have
1, but not 2+. You can flame me for saying that, but if you're trying
to provide the best life for your child(ren), and crime is your only
option, what have more than one - unless you're selfish and just want
a bigger family you can't support?
> > Human rights vs Society rights
>
> > So people... what's the solution? We seem to have a society-wide free
> > rider problem!
>
> Indeed. I often refer to them as "the rich'n'powerful".
Your comment sums up why I made my original post... but the numbers
say otherwise.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/8417205.stm
Bottom 60% seem to contribute 11.6%.
Oh, and their kids are most likely in private schools and they almost
certainly "go private" and don't use the NHS. Free riding buggers they
are and all...
Steve Firth
> It is not that I want anyone to fail, it's just that no matter how you
> behave as an individual in society, you will always be given food and
> shelter.
>
> Out of interest, *is* there any real way to lose the above?
Umm yes. As I suspect you might have noticed if you had your eyes open.
Ste
> On Dec 30, 6:27 am, Ste <ste_ro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I think you seem to be saying that the British state does not execute
> > a man and all his blood relations when he commits a crime. Yes, to
> > that extent, one "cannot fail" in the UK.
>
> Uh, no - my definition is that one cannot lose food and shelter
> regardless of conduct. This could be wrong btw, please correct me.
One can always lose food and shelter. Of course, if you mean "lose it
and never be in a position to get it back", no, our society does not
execute by starvation or exposure.
> > Jail never was jail. Standards in prison have always been commensurate
> > with the standards of wider society. A few years ago a prison in
> > Israel quelled riots from something like one- a day to zero in the
> > following year, just by the introduction of televisions in cells. And
> > it might be nice to think that the inmates were having a hard time
> > before TV, and learning their lessons, but in fact both staff and
> > inmates were simply being brutalised.
>
> This is where it gets tricky - loss of liberty in itself I would argue
> is not much of a deterrent *if* you have access to something like a
> TV. Then at what point does it become brutalised? You can't have
> respect and dignity on the one hand, and then expect prison to
> function as a deterrent on the other can you?
The truth is that the function of prison is to be a general deterrent,
not to be a special deterrent towards criminals. Also there are no end
of studies in psychiatric journals attesting to the lasting
psychological harm caused by harsh prison conditions - the more like
hell you make it inside, the more those who come out are likely to
raise hell.
> > As to the Old Testament, certainly Rehoboam referred to putting away
> > the whip and bringing out the scorpion, but the problem was that men
> > who had been chastised by the scorpion did not then fear being
> > chastised by the whip. Certainly, you should actually read the Old
> > Testament, instead of just inviting us to think about it.
>
> You're right, I am no expert, but that isn't really relevant here.
It is from my perspective, because I know better the implications of
what you're arguing for, and since you referred to the Old Testament I
thought you might be interested in what it actually says happens to a
king who treats his people harshly against the advice of wise counsel.
> I
> was trying to make a simple allegory between how we see punishment
> today, and what could be argued as a harsher/tougher/less forgiving
> environment.
But the allegory bears no resemblance to reality. If all you were
trying to say was "should we make prisons tougher", then you should
have just said that, instead of bringing in rhetoric about the Old
Testament which, like most "Christians", you've apparently never
read.
> > > If you are at the bottom of the food chain, why shouldn't you rob, do
> > > drugs, work for cash, drive w/out insurance? What are they going to
> > > do? Jails are full - so you're not going in there. Pay a fine? how? no
> > > job remember? Force them to start paying? Just go bankrupt again, or
> > > pay 20p a month for the next 20 years.
>
> > > I guess what I am (rather sarcastically) driving at, is that as a
> > > society we have a fundamental belief that we should support our fellow
> > > man, which is admirable. However, when that fellow man understands
> > > that no matter what he/she does, he/she cannot "fail", you get what we
> > > have today.
>
> > Actually you get what you have today when your fellow man understands
> > that he cannot succeed except by criminal means.
>
> If what you're saying is that there are no other options, then why
> choose to have more children and carry on the cycle? Or at least have
> 1, but not 2+. You can flame me for saying that, but if you're trying
> to provide the best life for your child(ren), and crime is your only
> option, what have more than one - unless you're selfish and just want
> a bigger family you can't support?
Most successful criminals don't have especially large families - at
least none that I know (or know of) do. As for the families of petty,
unsuccessful, disorganised criminals, it's got more to do with the
fact that children are often the binding interest for women in poor
communities - in the same way that it was in the past, really. The
difference from the past is that adult relationships are now far more
unstable, mainly because the men in such families don't generally
bring a steady, substantial income to the table.
Of course, the problem is complex, but that's basically the crux of
it: in poor communities, women often have no substantial interests
other than children, and children not only give them a life purpose,
but gives them the shared experiences by which to relate to their
friends and family.
On the other hand, women are not normally the criminals in poor
communities. It's usually the men, and they want sex. And so you have
an unholy alliance between women who want lots of children, and men
who want lots of sex.
> > > Human rights vs Society rights
>
> > > So people... what's the solution? We seem to have a society-wide free
> > > rider problem!
>
> > Indeed. I often refer to them as "the rich'n'powerful".
>
> Your comment sums up why I made my original post... but the numbers
> say otherwise.http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/8417205.stm
> Bottom 60% seem to contribute 11.6%.
Of course, that refers to absolute figures of income tax. Let me
illustrate the issue with this measure. Let us say the poor man earns
£100 per week. And let us say the rich man earns £2,000 per week. And
the poor man pays £10 in income tax. And the rich man pays £20. Why,
the rich man pays twice as much tax! But let us consider the tax
burden as a percentage of each man's income. The poor man pays 10% of
his income in tax, while the rich man pays but 1%, ten times as
little!
And by the relative measure, the rich still pay less tax than the poor
in this country.
Also you should note that the BBC figures will almost certainly
include what we consider upper-middle class professionals as the "top
10%". It's to do with the Registrar General's classification system,
where people with large amounts of unearned income are often not
included in the statistics, and the "upper class" means you're average
judge, not the Prince of Wales. Not a lot of people know that.
> Oh, and their kids are most likely in private schools and they almost
> certainly "go private" and don't use the NHS. Free riding buggers they
> are and all...
Education and healthcare for the masses benefit the rich in providing
skilled healthy labour to the profitable companies that they run. And
given that the NHS needs more doctors working more hours for the NHS,
not for private healthcare providers, and given that children benefit
from being around those from different backgrounds, the rich are doing
society as a whole an utter disservice by employing private healthcare
and education.
Al Bowlly
and blew....
> In article
> <d97105f8-d35a-4e49...@c34g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
> deja...@hotmail.com (abd08) wrote:
>
>> Human rights mean that jail is no longer jail in the traditional sense
>
> What would you say is the traditional sense of "jail" then?
>
> What is the purpose of prison?
Perhaps *you* can help Paul?
{hint - Paul Cummins of Chineham in Basingstoke is a known offender,
radio ham, assclown and troll}
MAY 2008 - Inside Times - Mailbag Page 9:
http://www.insidetime.org/backissues/May%202008.pdf
PAUL CUMMINS - HMP WINCHESTER
Church of offender management
From the moment you arrive you are cut off from your family, friends and
normal influences. You have very limited access to phones and post, and
encouraged to break off contact with those who are considered to be
encouraging offending behaviour.
The isolation strips you of your normal support systems, and increases
feelings of powerlessness and a need for group acceptance within your
establishment. It removes the sounding boards you use to evaluate
situations, and confidence in personal judgements deteriorates; making
independent action almost impossible.
Your environment is controlled, diet, rest, work, play, money and outside
contact. You can do nothing without the approval of your 'keepers'; the
only support being what they offer in the form of behaviour programmes.
Once you are completely brainwashed you will be encouraged or 'coerced'
to fit in and depend on a different form of ideology. A logic created by
the system, advocated by the system to benefit the system, not you. No
criticism is allowed; complaints are ignored or held against you.
You are encouraged to consider the people in your life that you have
hurt, disappointed or rejected; made to feel worthless; and then you are
brought back from the brink of emotional despair with a lifebelt as long
as you are prepared to change to fit the system.
Finally you are allowed to leave, but having been remoulded, you are
unable to cope with the real world; unable to think or act for
yourself ... so you think of ways to return to the system. Sound familiar?
You may think this is a description of prison life, and it could be. In
fact it is taken from a letter written to a rescued member of a cult.
Prison is no longer looked on as a deterrent or punishment, it has become
the Church of Offender Management; with a current membership of 81.000
commited members. Will prison ever reform? Unlikely. Too much is invested
in the cult!
--
Midnight, the stars a n d you.........
Cynic
<tim.ri...@gmx.com> wrote:
>On Dec 29, 7:31�pm, useth...@stedphone.invalid (Paul Cummins) wrote:
>
>> And anyway, what is this three strikes bollocks? If killing is wrong (we
>> imprison murderers) then it's wrong, whoever does it, surely?
>
>Of course not.
>
>Killing a healthy animal, for example, is wrong.
You'd better inform the meat trade.
--
Cynic