Archive of old topics pre-October 2007. PM a mod to get one reopened
  •  
By bairy
Membership Days Membership Days Posts
#24440
Nope, it's not that joke about "tell them immigrants kill paedophiles", it's much more interesting.


Someone called David Jones has written an article titled Zero tolerance must mean exactly that...even if she's a sweet maths student, in which he basically says that zero tolerance should be applied, citing these cases:

Boy, 12, charged with assault after throwing cocktail sausage
Charges dropped against sunbathers who flashed their breasts at CCTV camera
Feet on seat girl let off without a stain on her character

He states that new york took on zero tolerance to the point where they arrested people for just being rude to the police. And it worked with crime rapidly falling.


So how are Mail readers going to react.
The Mail wrote those stories and published comments to the effect of "stupid" "crap system" "target the innocent" "waste of money", and now they've published an article that says that type of thing should not only be enforced but extended.


I don't get the Mail. Seriously. We joke that they don't know what they want, but they really don't seem to. They'll spend a month banging on about something, then they'll let through an article and comments that contradicts it. It's logical to argue this is them presenting both sides, but since that month will be such vigerous banging, I don't believe that.

Maybe this is an effort to recruit new readers .. or maybe it's just a clever ploy so that Mail readers can say "actually they do mention both sides".
Buggered if I can work it out.
By Adrian
Membership Days Membership Days Posts
#24466
I actually think there's a huge difference between the first three examples and the "new york took on zero tolerance to the point where they arrested people for just being rude to the police" one. Namely that the latter example involves the police. That kind of thing does need to be nipped in the bud to curb antisocial behaviour, however taking people to court for the most petty of things is just silly. How do you define anti-social behaviour? Aren't we all guilty of anti-social behaviour at some point?
 
By Abernathy
Membership Days Membership Days Posts
#24467
Well, David Jones is dead right about New York City. Visiting the city for the first time just over a year ago, I was deeply impressed at just how clean and safe Manhattan is.

He's right in principle about the application of zero tolerance to petty things like feet up on seats on public transport too. If you're serious about rules that - after all - exist for the benefit of all public transport users, then those rules need to be enforced to ensure that people like this "otherwise law-abiding" teenager think about why there is a rule that you shouldn't put your manky feet on the seats(she clearly didn't) - and don't do it in the first place. Sure, a word in her ear might well have been enough on this occasion to discourage her, and maybe taking her to court was a tadge heavy handed, but the principle of the application of an actual penalty of some kind for thoughtless misdemeanours like "feet up" that make everybody else's life less pleasant is spot on, in my view.

for a list of other anti-social crimes on public transport, see here : http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,,2162395,00.html
By Adrian
Membership Days Membership Days Posts
#24473
I don't think anyone would argue about the principle of it, but seeking disproportionate punishments that might potentially destroy people's careers is not going to help anti-social behaviour because it'll turn the public off the whole concept of zero-tolerance - just look at all the controversy surrounding this story.
 
By Abernathy
Membership Days Membership Days Posts
#24476
Adrian wrote:I don't think anyone would argue about the principle of it, but seeking disproportionate punishments that might potentially destroy people's careers is not going to help anti-social behaviour because it'll turn the public off the whole concept of zero-tolerance - just look at all the controversy surrounding this story.
Well, yes - the beak in this case clearly made the correct decision to give her an absolute discharge, as landing this young woman with a criminal record would indeed have been disproportionate. But a Mersey Rail representative pointed out that they don't legally have the power to issue fixed penalty tickets and that they therefore have no alternative if they want to enforce by-laws that are meant to be for everyone's benefit (which clearly, they do). So it comes back again to making people think about how such by-laws really do apply to them personally. If this woman hadn't plonked her manky flip-flops on the seats, she'd never have had to worry about having her career destroyed. Bet she won't thoughtlessly do it again.
By Adrian
Membership Days Membership Days Posts
#24481
Abernathy wrote:
Adrian wrote:I don't think anyone would argue about the principle of it, but seeking disproportionate punishments that might potentially destroy people's careers is not going to help anti-social behaviour because it'll turn the public off the whole concept of zero-tolerance - just look at all the controversy surrounding this story.
Well, yes - the beak in this case clearly made the correct decision to give her an absolute discharge, as landing this young woman with a criminal record would indeed have been disproportionate. But a Mersey Rail representative pointed out that they don't legally have the power to issue fixed penalty tickets and that they therefore have no alternative if they want to enforce by-laws that are meant to be for everyone's benefit (which clearly, they do). So it comes back again to making people think about how such by-laws really do apply to them personally. If this woman hadn't plonked her manky flip-flops on the seats, she'd never have had to worry about having her career destroyed. Bet she won't thoughtlessly do it again.
Ah, wasn't aware there was a reason they couldn't issue a fixed penalty. That does make their actions looks a bit more reasonable, they shouldn't just have to let the law go unenforced altogether.
By sven945
Membership Days Membership Days Posts
#24489
The only thing I can see coming from this is lots of little shits refusing to take their feet of seats of buses and trains (even when challenged by people in charge) with the response "what are you going to do? You can't take me to court" or something.

Bah, I'm turning into a Mail reader... I must go off and find myself a copy of the Morning Star to redress the balance.
Reasonably epic Mail Fail

Interesting that some of the replies to the top-[…]

Roll Call

Ever been to the Mort Subite bar in Brussels? […]

Boris Johnson

That's one scary feed. Got to be a piss-taker, s[…]

Brexit Fuckwit Thread

Jesus wept.