Wednesday, October 28, 2009

Britain is a paradise ..... for criminals

No country is perfect, but Britain is fast becoming as near perfect a nation as it is possible to be...... if you are a criminal, that is.

There is the case of one of the men convicted over the death of Baby P having his sentence reduced which could lead to his release in less than three years, while in another case a man who killed a burglar while defending his mother's home from two teenage thugs is being prosecuted for murder.

Mass immigration has led to an explosion in organised crime and even though the police have more men and resources than they've ever had they are so stretched to cope with the high level crime that immigration has brought - terrorism, prostitution, people trafficking, drugs, gambling - that they are unable to provide the personnel to tackle the sort of crime that most people have to put up with and which has now become so common place that we just shrug it off and don't even bother to report it. Or if we do, it is only to obtain a "crime number" which we can report to our insurance companies for a claim.

The majority of crimes are never solved. Don't let the official figures fool you - the police administrators are happy to join in the illusion that they are "solving" crimes by using various statistical tricks as reported by various professional police blogs - the reality is that the vast majority of crimes will not even be investigated, let alone solved. Even if the police do investigate the crime and catch the criminal, the chances are that it won't go to court.

And with the prisons filled to overflowing, the justice system is under pressure not to send criminals to prison - so even in the unlikely event that a criminal is caught, prosecuted and convicted they are more than likely going to walk free to re offend. And, contrary to popular myth, criminals who aren't in prison are far more likely to commit another crime than criminals banged up inside.

Britain has become a haven for the criminal and this is not likely to change as long as we continue with the progressive nonsense that has dominated politics for the last 50 years. It's no coincidence that the rise in crime has happened at the same time as we've followed the road of social liberalism.

When Britain embarked on this journey into progressive hell we were far from being a perfect nation - but we had achieved the best possible balance that could exist for the majority of people. The irony of this - the irony of leftism in general - is that the socialist attempt to create Utopian society has made things far worse than it was when they began. The more socially "liberal" we've become, the more authoritarian the government needs to be.

That isn't going to change until this progressive experiment is ended once and for all. Only then can we start to undo the huge damage wrought upon our nation by the left.

14 comments:

Anonymous said...

'That isn't going to change until this progressive experiment is ended once and for all. Only then can we start to undo the huge damage wrought upon our nation by the left. '

I'm not sure we can and i'm not sure the damage can be undone now.

The social problems that these policies have caused and that are effectively the root cause of a great deal of the criminality we see, have arisen (and been compounded / accelerated) over generations and it would take the same to correct them.

The correction would also require a return to some sort of definitive moral standard. It's the lack of moral behaviour that is at the root of these issues (as opposed to the moral 'relativism' of 'progressive' policies).

A lack of sexual morality has led to a massive rise in STD's, children with no fathers, abortions etc and teenagers who have no respect for themselves or each other, as they effectively only exist to satisfy each others urges.

Feed that into a general lack of personal morality and you have an increase in crimes against property and person as well as the increased disposition towards corrupt behaviour (as most recently noted amongs our great and good MPs. Incidentally, should we not be more worried that they are actually a reflection of 'us')

It goes one step further: we are virtually at the stage of saying 'wrong' is good.

The final part of the lefty jigsaw is to remove the penalty for immoral behaviour. Instead of detering and punishing criminals, we subsidise and rationalise or medicalise their behaviour.

You see, justice is a moral requirement. When you have no morals (as a society), you need no justice.

The baby P case highlights this sadly but perfectly.

A defenceless child was murdered by the products of our amoral (or 'new morality' if you want to give it some kind of euphemistic label) society.

Public anger was rightly felt on the issue. The mechanisms of Justice delivered...... SFA.

As actions speak louder than words, what that says about our society is that we are quite happy with child murder.

And it's our 'sophisticated', 'enlightened' and 'rationalist' humanity that has delivered this, so lets not derive any hope from humanity in sorting this.....

~Fatbob~

Stan said...

The mere fact that the left have undone the previous certainties demonstrates that there isn't anything that can not be changed - so I disagree that what has happened since can not be undone.

Indeed, there is an historical parallel in our own past as the 18th and early 19th centuries were blighted by similar problems of social and moral breakdown and high criminality.

Those issues were reversed by a concerted effort by the Victorians who, through a combination of moral steadfastness and political will, turned a nation riven with immoral behaviour and rampant criminality into an ordered and stable society.

The root of all this was, of course, the moral baseline provided by Christianity. It was backed up by a fundamental belief in those with the means that they had a moral duty to do what they could to help those without the means - hence the rise of philanthropy.

I don't agree that the problems we now face are "generations" old. I suppose it depends how you define a generation, but most of what has gone wrong has gone wrong in the last 50 years which I would say is in the span of a single generation. It's true that some of the problems can be traced back 100 years or so, but that is still no more than two generations and then only just.

I agree that this will be no easy task, but I maintain that we are seeing a sea change of opinion coming in the next generation. Just like it was with the early Victorians who had to live with the mess bequeathed them by the decades of Georgian excess and neglect - the Dickens generation if you like - the next generation are the ones who are living with the problems that my generation have created for them and they do not like what they have been saddled with.

Over the next ten years there will be a number of things which will happen that will convince the next generation once and for all that the left has led them down the garden path - not least the revelation that human induced global warming is one enormous fraud.

I've no doubt that there will be a return to social and moral conservatism against a backdrop of religious morality and political conservatism. The only question is - in Britain, will this be based on Christianity or Islam?

My current bet would be Islam. My hope is that we wake up to the dangers that represents to our traditional culture and history of tolerance and that we reassert our Christian heritage before it is too late.

Right now it seems like a forlorn hope - which isn't helped by the C of E having a weak, ineffective and liberal leadership. I'd prefer it if we had a strong, certain Church of England, but if the choice were between Catholicsm and Islam I'd prefer Catholicism any day of the week.

Von Spreuth said...

Stan said...

in our own past as the 18th and early 19th centuries were blighted by similar problems of social and moral breakdown and high criminality.


No.

THEN people were deported for stealing a loaf of bread. They were floged for being drunk and dissorderly. THEY were the "crimes" that happened then.

Sow me where a shower of mother fuckers stamped a puppy to death. Show me where a man playing cricket with his son was stoned to death. Where are all the people shooting and stabbing each other, and the public, because they were looked at in a "deissdrespectful manner"? Where are all the records of men in Runcorn being kicked to death for telling a shower of twats to be quiet?

There MAY have been equal crime levels. But look at what justified/ the title "crime".

Stan said...

You're comparing the punishments rather than the crime, von Spreuth. There is no doubt that punishment for crime back then was harsher than it is today - but stealing and being drunk and disorderly are still crimes today (i'm not so sure about d&d anymore, but it certainly is rife!).

Nevertheless, the Victorians recognnised that the fundamental cause of the high level of criminality at the time was the social and moral breakdown which they successfully sought to address.

Von Spreuth. said...

You have not answered;

Show me where a shower of mother fuckers stamped a puppy to death. Show me where a man playing cricket with his son was stoned to death. Where are all the people shooting and stabbing each other, and the public, because they were looked at in a "deissdrespectful manner"? Where are all the records of men in Runcorn being kicked to death for telling a shower of twats to be quiet?

Plus a hundred or so others. I have collected a lot, to show people here when they go on about "How wonderful Britain is", but The sheer number is just too large.

I said TYPES of crime. NO one steals bread NOW because they have thirteen starving bastards to feed and dole has not been invented.

In Victorian times there was even a possibility of feeling sympathy for the thieving cunts. NOT so today.

THAT is the (ANOTHER) difference.

Stan said...

Sorry, VS - I'm not disputing that the sort of crimes we get today are more heinous than pre-Victorian times or that the punishements of those times were tougher than they are today, I'm arguing that the Victorians recognised that the true cause of crime is moral breakdown.

That is what Victorians sought to address ahead of anything else - reinstating a strong Christian belief to the population while at the same time introducing philanthropy as a means of improving the lot of the genuinely deprived. They also introduced the concept of prison as an austere, effective deterrent - building some 90 prisons in just 30 odd years - and introduced the concept of modern policing.

That is my point. If we want to solve the problem of crime we need to do the same things that the Victorians did - the first of which is to recognise that the real cause of the crime explosion in the latter half of the 20th century is not poverty and deprivation, but moral breakdown.

As you point out, nobody kicks a puppy to death or stones a cricket playing dad to death because they have no money. They do it because they have no morals.

Von Spreuth. said...

O.K. I think we can basically agree on that.

Henry Crun said...

"turned a nation riven with immoral behaviour and rampant criminality into an ordered and stable society."

And then proceeded to wipe out an entire generation of that ordered and stable society in the First World War.

Stan said...

"And then proceeded to wipe out an entire generation of that ordered and stable society in the First World War."

I don't think that was the Victorians, Henry - and I'm not even sure that the principles behind our involvement in the First World War were particularly Victorian either seeing how the principle foreign policy of the Victorian era was "spendid isolation" - i.e. not getting involved in other peoples conflicts unless it threatened our own specific interests.

Von Spreuth. said...

Failed miserably in the Crimea then.

bernard said...

Why is it that what is happening in the UK is always called an "Experiment"?
It's no more an experiment than, for example, the enforced re-education of the populace done by PolPot and their 'Back to year Zero' of the 1970s.
Social Marxism is on a mission. They have no need to "experiment" because the cause justifies the means, and there is ample evidence that it works (for a while at least)as seen across much of eastern Europe for 45 years.
We're in for the long haul folks.

Stan said...

VS - Crimea happened relatively early in the Victorian era - and is quite probably the conflict that led to the policy of not getting involved in far off conflicts that do not directly affect us.

bernard - fair point. I use the expression in relation to the ideas being put forward as being relatively new to the British people, but you are right - as ideas they have been in practical use for at least a century.

North Northwester said...

We've got to be prepared to do the worst thing in the world [after being racist] if we are to enforce the old morality - and that's to be 'judgemental'. I find it difficult myself when dealing with friends to point out when they are harming themselves or leading themselves into danger or foolishness, because the underlying moral attitude that exists now is 'What business is it of yours what I do?' and 'Who appointed you to be my judge?'

So we can flock to the churches of the old morality if we want, but the hard thing; the thing that to my shame I find most costly to do but which absolutely must be done is to back up the morality with advice and disapprobation when necessary.
There's so much about this foul 'experiment' that stands against the very idea of criticising immorality: when 'Let it all hang out' is the founding beatitude of entire generations, then we social conservatives have got to be prepared to feel uncomfortable and to make others uncomfortable too. Now THAT's a facer.

Stan said...

We're all judgemental, NNW - it's a natural inbuilt instinct which enables you to decide whether something is a threat to you or your loved ones. What we need to be is judgemental and not hypocritical - often those who proclaim most that we shouldn't be judgemental are the ones who are most judgemental.

Hypocrisy is the scourge of the modern world. Those who are most likely to scream "racist!" are usually the most racist - those who shout "sexist!" are usually the most sexist - those who preach tolerance are often the most intolerant.

We recoil from being judgemental and then are expected to accept officially sanctioned judgement calls (not justice) as if those who make those decisions are better qualified to do so. Why should I consider the views of politicians when many members of that elite group have been exposed as liars, fraudsters, perverts and sex cheats?

Be judgemental - but don't be a hypocrite.