Britain: 'Let burglars off with caution', police told.


PDA






Otherguy Overby
April 6, 2006, 12:23 PM
I just ran across this gem on KABA:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=381799&in_page_id=1770
Burglars will be allowed to escape without punishment under new instructions sent to all police forces. Police have been told they can let them off the threat of a court appearance and instead allow them to go with a caution.

The same leniency will be shown to criminals responsible for more than 60 other different offences, ranging from arson through vandalism to sex with underage girls.

New rules sent to police chiefs by the Home Office set out how seriously various crimes should be regarded, and when offenders who admit to them should be sent home with a caution.

A caution counts as a criminal record but means the offender does not face a court appearance which would be likely to end in a fine, a community punishment or jail.

Is this justice? Should criminals be let off with just a caution? Tell us in readers comments below.

Some serious offences - including burglary of a shop or office, threatening to kill, actual bodily harm, and possession of Class A drugs such as heroin or cocaine - may now be dealt with by caution if police decide that would be the best approach.

And a string of crimes including common assault, threatening behaviour, sex with an underage girl or boy, and taking a car without its owner's consent, should normally be dealt with by a caution, the circular said.

The Home Office instruction applies to offenders who have admitted their guilt but who have no criminal record.

They are also likely to be able to show mitigating factors to lessen the seriousness of their crime.

The instruction to abandon court prosecutions in more cases - even for people who admit to having carried out serious crimes - comes in the wake of repeated attempts by ministers and senior judges to persuade the courts to send fewer criminals to jail.

The crisis of overcrowding in UK prisons has also prompted moves to let many more convicts out earlier.

It emerged last month that some violent or sex offenders, given mandatory life sentences under a "two-strike" rule, have been freed after as little as 15 months.

The latest move provoked condemnation yesterday from Tories and critics of the justice system.

Shadow Home Secretary David Davis said: "Yet again the Government is covertly undermining the penal system and throwing away the trust of ordinary citizens that criminals will be punished and punished properly.

"In the last few weeks we have witnessed a serial failure of Labour to protect the citizen, with murders of innocent people by criminals variously on early release or probation, and now we're finding that ever more serious crimes are not being brought to court at all."

Criminologist Dr David Green, of the Civitas think-tank, said: "They appear to have given up making the court system work and doing anything about delays and the deviousness of defence lawyers.

"This is part of the wider problem that the Home Office has an anti-prison bias. But while they regard prison as uncivilised, they don't seem to care whether the alternatives work or not."

The Home Office circular to police forces has been sent amid a Government drive to reduce the number of cases coming before the courts.

A number of crimes - notably shoplifting - are now regularly dealt with by fixed penalty notices similar to a parking fine.

A whole range of offenders who admit traffic and more minor criminal offences will in future have their cases "processed" by new Government bureaucracies rather than by the courts.

At the same time judges and magistrates have been bombarded with instructions from the senior judiciary to send fewer criminals to jail.

Burglars and muggers should be spared prison more often, courts have been told, and last week sentencing authorities ordered a further "raising of the custody threshold" to keep out of prison more offenders who would in the past have been given up to a year in jail.

The new instructions to police on how to keep criminals out of the courts altogether are given in a 'Gravity Factor Matrix'.

This breaks down offences into four categories, with the most serious rated as four and the least serious as one.

For criminals over 18, who admit offences ranked at the third level of seriousness, the instruction is: "Normally charge but a simple caution may be appropriate if first offence".

Officers dealing with those who admit level two crimes are told: "Normally simple caution for a first offence but a charge may be appropriate if (there are) previous convictions or appropriate to circumstances."

The Home Office said the guidance had been circulated nationally because there had been regional anomalies in the way offenders were dealt with and these needed to be removed.

A spokesman said: 'Cautioning in individual cases is an operational matter for the police and Crown Prosecution Service.

"'The new circular firstly provides up to date guidance on the use of cautions to encourage consistency across the country.

"Secondly, with the introduction of statutory charging, the guidance needed to clarify what the effect would be on police responsibility for cautions. Finally the guidance was introduced to outline the practical process of administering a caution."

Cautioning was used heavily in the late 1980s and early 1990s, particularly for juvenile offenders under 18.

Tory Home Secretary Michael Howard cracked down on cautions in 1994 because young thugs and thieves were getting repeated cautions but no punishment.

But cautioning for adult offenders is now on the rise. Dr Green said: "The Home Office is missing its target to achieve a set number of offenders brought to justice. But it seems they regard a caution as an offender brought to justice.

"This is a nod and a wink to police forces - deal with your cases by cautions and we will hit our target."

I wonder if a Brit subject who beat down a mugger would get a caution. Would Tony Martin get a caution now? Seems the Brit Pols identify most closely with criminals.

If you enjoyed reading about "Britain: 'Let burglars off with caution', police told." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
merk
April 6, 2006, 12:38 PM
I bet people from now on defending themselves from thugs get in more trouble than the thugs themselves.


What a wonderful world.

Henry Bowman
April 6, 2006, 12:38 PM
STOP or I'll caution you!:rolleyes:

longeyes
April 6, 2006, 12:40 PM
When are "enlightenment" and cowardice perilously close to being the same thing...?

Maxwell
April 6, 2006, 12:54 PM
This is the result of people thinking too much.

Baron Holbach4
April 6, 2006, 01:22 PM
I bet people from now on defending themselves from thugs get in more trouble than the thugs themselves.


This is definitely true in the UK. Defend your castle from invasion can mean a prison term. Even if the intruder harms himself while tripping over your rug could land you in court as the defendant.

foghornl
April 6, 2006, 01:33 PM
What happened to the {Formerly} Great Britain of Winston Churchill ? ? :confused:

LHB1
April 6, 2006, 01:39 PM
UNBELIEVABLE!! It is hard to imagine any government sending out such rules. Think I will stay on the west side of Atlantic Ocean.

Good shooting and be safe.
LB

antsi
April 6, 2006, 01:41 PM
Come on, folks, I really think this is a step in a positive direction. This is the age of tolerance and diversity, right? We have to embrace and celebrate the differences of people who choose to express their identities through assault, burglary, and sex with minors. Who are we to condemn (much less prosecute and imprison!) people just because they have made different lifestyle choices? If we fail to embrace and celebrate these people, it could be damaging to their self-esteem!

When, oh when will we in America become as progressive as Europeans?

merk
April 6, 2006, 01:45 PM
What happened to the {Formerly} Great Britain of Winston Churchill ? ?

It went the same way of the U.S. military.

The world would be a better place with a few Pattons and Churchills around.


Come on, folks, I really think this is a step in a positive direction. This is the age of tolerance and diversity, right? We have to embrace and celebrate the differences of people who choose to express their identities through assault, burglary, and sex with minors. Who are we to condemn (much less prosecute and imprison!) people just because they have made different lifestyle choices? If we fail to embrace and celebrate these people, it could be damaging to their self-esteem!

When, oh when will we in America become as progressive as Europeans?

Nice satire ;)

Mk VII
April 6, 2006, 02:07 PM
the actual list of offences is here

R-Tex12
April 6, 2006, 02:40 PM
Words fail me. :banghead:

tellner
April 6, 2006, 02:55 PM
What he said. Didn't say. My G-... Whiskey Tango Foxt...

Otherguy Overby
April 6, 2006, 03:11 PM
Could the Brits be giving us an unintentional object lesson of what happens when a socialist "democracy" fails?

Of course we could never expect our fearless leaders to learn from this in any beneficial way.

Seems there's an awful lot of people in the world who are deathly afraid of freedom and will legislate or do anything to avoid it and limit it. Will fear of freedom bring down our country, too?

tellner
April 6, 2006, 03:31 PM
You've got a weird idea about what "socialism" means. It would be more accurate to say "This is what happens when a bunch of aristocratic crypto-fascists feel a need to keep people scared and cowed." OK. That's not fair. There isn't anything "crypto" about them any more.

Denmark, Finland, Norway and Sweden are closer to socialist. For them it works. This kind of untreated effluent started during Thatcher's reign. When Labor took over Blair began a strategy of "attack from the Right", cutting the Tories support off by pushing policies that were more conservative than theirs from the police state and surveillance society to crushing labor (small l).

It's a British thing, not a "socialist" thing.

LHB1
April 6, 2006, 04:11 PM
If this is an April Fool's joke, it is a little bit late.

Good shooting and be safe.
LB

ARTiger
April 6, 2006, 04:17 PM
If is was not actually happening I would say this was unbelievable. Even as it is happening it still is beyond my grasp intellectually. Obviously the English are more enlightened than us colonial heathen. Or should we summise that as in the rest of Europe that manhood, courage, honor and integrity have been effectively neutered in the name of the common good?

Seriously though, what an embarassment British society has become. While our culture was initially built on the best of theirs it seems they discarded the very same things we hold dear.

roscoe
April 6, 2006, 05:46 PM
Isn't this what judges do all the time?

And what is 'kerb crawling'? Sounds like trouble!

dasmi
April 6, 2006, 05:58 PM
The same leniency will be shown to criminals responsible for more than 60 other different offences, ranging from arson through vandalism to sex with underage girls.
I think I'll go to Britian and start burning crap down.
Also, read the user comments on that page. Lots of pissed off Brits.

only1asterisk
April 6, 2006, 06:20 PM
Where is agricola?

David

real_name
April 6, 2006, 06:23 PM
And what is 'kerb crawling'? Sounds like trouble!

Kerb crawling is similar to cruising. It is driving slowly around a neighborhood or downtown area specifically to procure a prostitute.

boofus
April 6, 2006, 06:23 PM
Where is agricola?

Either out committing crimes himself or out warning people not to rape 11-year olds again and slapping wrists for trying to burn down Westminster Abbey.

MechAg94
April 6, 2006, 08:23 PM
If the government keep giving guidelines like this to the police forces and burglary and crimes like these are no longer classed as a crime, then the government will soon reach it's lower target on crime figures and we could soon end up with a crime free country and then we can say that crime is on the decrease, who are we trying to kid.

- Larry, Little Sutton, Ellesmere Port

I like this comment from the article's comments.:)

mwelch8404
April 6, 2006, 09:01 PM
Thanks, Mech - that pull you put up actually made me lol.

mordechaianiliewicz
April 6, 2006, 09:14 PM
Seeing as how Britain has a government of criminals (whose punishment should range anywhere from imprisonment for 5 years to beheading), I'm not surprised they wich to help out their partners in crime.

Standing Wolf
April 6, 2006, 09:16 PM
The Home Office circular to police forces has been sent amid a Government drive to reduce the number of cases coming before the courts.

Ah, the poor toiling masses in the courts!

bumm
April 6, 2006, 10:13 PM
The best way to reduce crime rates is to redefine crime. Works every time!
Marty

mr.trooper
April 7, 2006, 12:51 AM
Great and Mercifull Jesus, please save the Brits from their own idiotic parlement.
:what:

Warren
April 7, 2006, 12:58 AM
Seems the Brit Pols identify most closely with criminals.

Criminals and politicians the world over have the same mindset and come from the same stinking stew of evil, those that become politicians just have a bit more ambition.

sm
April 7, 2006, 01:33 AM
You have to be kidding me...

I got another hairbrained idea.

I "may" have a way to reduce illegals from crossing into Arizona.

Since Arizona has the London Bridge...
http://www.roadtripamerica.com/places/havasu.htm

...dismantle Scotland Yard, and reconstruct it near the AZ-Mex border.

It won't take long at 80 pounds per pop for litter and trash fines to bankcrupt the illegals and they cannot afford to come over the border.

Hey, maybe not brilliant, makes a lot more sense than some efforts the UK is doing with crime and the US with border problems...

Don't Tread On Me
April 7, 2006, 01:48 AM
I've never seen a country castrate itself so much :uhoh:


I hope that wasn't low-road, but this is the total rejection of any effort to maintain self-preservation at the civilian, police and national level and that is the most accurate description I could find. If the police cannot act against thugs, certainly no one can. Anarchy is next.

Not even the extremist Brady bunch and VPC advocate such stripping of police powers, they actually prefer police to be armed over citizens! They don't want either to be effective against crime. I am very critical of police power (as evident in my responses to threads here on THR), but I'd never advocate, or even think of the idea that they just let thugs go. This is just insane. :(


Glad I don't live there. And BTW, this is precisely why there was a war in 1775 and 1812. If you want all the Americans who died in that war, WW2 etc..to be deaths in pure vain, then support socialism, gun control, patriot acts...in no time, we'll become the very thing that our grandfathers and founding fathers DIED to save us from.

God helps us all.

Stand_Watie
April 7, 2006, 05:16 AM
I've never seen a country castrate itself so much

To the contrary, we should be able to agree that they have plenty of nuts.

A judge who said a legal case against a 10-year-old boy over alleged racism was "political correctness gone mad" has been criticised by a teaching union.

The National Union of Teachers (NUT) said Judge Jonathan Finestein was "out of date" in his attitude. The boy from Irlam, Greater Manchester, appeared at Salford Youth Court accused of racially abusing a fellow pupil. But Judge Finestein adjourned the case, saying the boys would have got "a good clouting" in his dayOn adjourning the case until 20 April, he asked prosecutors to reconsider whether the case was in the public interest. However Judith Elderkin, NUT National Executive member, said the judge should have taken the allegation of racism more seriously. She added that she thought he was "out of date" with the way issues are dealt with in schools today.The boy is accused of abusing an 11-year-old pupil in a school playground between 1 July 2005 and 30 January 2006. He is accused of calling the pupil names including "P***, n***** and Bin Laden". During the preliminary hearing the court was told the boys are now friends and play football with each other...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/manchester/4886014.stm

(the racial slur edit's are mine)

Otherguy Overby
April 7, 2006, 12:48 PM
Stand_Watie

I've never seen a country castrate itself so much


Now that's a seemingly apt observation. I read a lot of the comments, made by Brits, that were connected to the article. It sure seems to me that the chosen course of action is to move to Spain or somewhere else. Several of those making comments had already done this. Few comments contained any inkling that personnally taking action might help. Of course they might get arrested for taking action. Sheesh, those people are like beaten/whipped dogs.

Most of the comments (other than those sourced in the US, seemed mostly of the "somebody" should do something non-strategy strategy. If only a fraction of that type of crime significantly increased here, a great percentage of citizens would head for a gun store, except in Minneapolis, of course, where there are none.:cuss:

*Please note. The above comments exclude Brit paricipants here at THR. It's quite obvious they are much more into personal responsibility.

Now, off with you lot! It's back to cop bashing for you. :neener:

Manedwolf
April 7, 2006, 12:50 PM
It sure seems to me that the chosen course of action is to move to Spain or somewhere else.

Nah. Spain can't seem to get a high-tech infrastructure going and the government has corruption issues.

Switzerland. Very nice, EVERYONE has guns, crime rate is very low, excellent standards of living, and a hell of a sharp military.

I still think the Swiss model of all able-bodied citizens taking an issued rifle home with them and training for the common defense is what the founding fathers intended for HERE.

The_Antibubba
April 8, 2006, 01:29 AM
I wonder when I'll be able to book a "Wilding and Thuggery" vacation tour to England?

I eagerly await the day when I can knock down old gents in the street, nail a few 14 year old pretties, and steal Grandmum's silver set. And when it's over, I can expect an apology from the Bobby's for being provoked! It's a vacation dream come true, and I won't have to expose myself to the dangers of Third World travel!

real_name
April 8, 2006, 01:41 AM
I won't have to expose myself to the dangers of Third World travel!

You think it is worse in the Third World than in London?

I felt far safer in the slums and sidestreets of Phnom Penh or Managua or Calcutta or Marrakesh than I ever did living on Mare St in Hackney, London.

Why do you think the British Police want nothing to do with the hooligans and chavs? The British youth are out of control.

(insert smiley indicating a modicum of satire and irony).

sterling180
April 8, 2006, 11:14 AM
If they had committed their crimes in the mid-80s, they would have got at least 5-8 years behind bars, but now everybody is going liberal and making them serve less and less time after each year.They should serve 8 years in a Victorian-style jail.That will teach em ha ha ha:evil: :evil: :)

Sistema1927
April 8, 2006, 12:15 PM
STOP or I'll caution you!

STOP!, or I will say STOP again.

The wife and I were thinking about taking a vacation to the UK. However, I don't think that we will spend a dime of our money helping to hold up this farce. (And, this is from someone who lived in England for five years and really wanted to go revisit some of those places that I didn't appreciate as a youngster.)

Matt_W
April 8, 2006, 12:58 PM
Yep it is as bad here in the UK as it appears to be. The Police actually believe that they are a priviledged class and have a right to be armed, they firmly beleive that ordinary citizens are not accountable enough to own a baton. They are not themselves 'armed' but instead talk about Personal Protective Equipment. Personal being the operative word because it is only ever useful at protecting themselves and their colleagues.

Ask a Police Officer what they would do iif they ever witnessed a serious crime in progress whilst off duty they they will to a man tell you about being a professional witness, standing back and talking to the operator over their mobile telephones.

Ask a Police officer if they would want to carry even handcuffs and they will tell you that any officer who wants to carry PPE off duty is nuts.

Dropping litter is now an arrestable offence and yet a burgular is likely to avoid court iif he accepts a Caution. (Firm words of advice not to offend again otherwise things might be handled differently next time.)

Most people I know over a certain age are afraid to venture out after dark and almost no one dares keep a weapon per se by the bed (or aleast admit to it). People arm themselves with 'innocent' objects in the hope that they will not come across as being 'prepared for a fight' because that could mean the difference between aqquital or conviction should they ever have to protect themselves or thier loved ones. They therefore dont practice or even dare to mentally prepare themselves should the worst come to the worst for the same reasons.

I swear sometimes I also get the impression that some of my fellow countrymen act like whipped dogs.

I know of people who have credible threats made against them and yet they are still more afraid of the Police then the criminals targetting them.

It looks as if carrying a truncheon for self defence is a much more serious crime than than being a drug addict, in fact you get more sympathy from the Police if you are a drug addict than if you are a father protecting your family from a raiding party of drug addicts. I know of one person who ran out into the street with a baton to stop a group of three men who had just thrown a large object through his front window, the men ran off before he got the chance to strike anyone, the Police arrived and arrested him. He was taken to court where the Jury found him not guilty on any offence-but why were the Police so quick to see him charged?

Carrying a truncheon in public for example carries a longer prison sentance than carrying a knife. 4 and 2 years respectively.

Sorry for the rant.

sterling180
April 8, 2006, 02:24 PM
I'll tell you whats nuts,here's a list of well-recognised Police officers that were killed in the line of duty,whilst unarmed, but could have been armed, under the curcumstances-if allowed to be.

DC(Detective Constable) John Fordham:Knifed to death by infamous ganster Kenneth Noye, whilst compromised on an undercover-steakout on Noyes property, in West-Kingsdown,Kent-in 1985.Noye later claimed self-defence in his defence and his wife was armed with one of his legally-held shotguns.Fordham was qualified to carry a Metropolitan-Police-issue .38 Smith and Wesson revolver, but was apparently refused permission by a senior-officer, despite the dangerous nature of that operation.


PC Roger Brenton:Shot to death, by madman Micheal Ryan in 1987 whilst responding to a 999 emergency in Hungerford, Berkshire, that stated that a man with a gun was in the area.Brentons patrol car took approximately 24-rounds from Micheal Ryans AK-47 and was finished off by Ryans Beretta M92f, after Brenton radioed for help.Why the hell didn't he keep away from Ryan, considering the fact he wasn't armed?

PC Keith Blakelock: Killed by a thug/s during a riot on a housing-estate in Tottenham, North London- in 1985.

PC Patrick Dunne: Killed I think by a thug armed with a samuri-sword-in 1993.

If you enjoyed reading about "Britain: 'Let burglars off with caution', police told." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!