Okay, I am in the situation where my finance's car has had its windscreen smashed by a thrown golf ball, we called the police 3 1/2 hours ago when the culprits and witnesses were still in the area, they said they would come round and they still have not arrived.
On a separate occasion my own car was vandalised in a local car park and I was left on my own at night and in the rain trying to contact someone for help as I could not drive the car due to the damage. (Not to mention the local yobs and drunks hanging around). The police were called and I was given a crime number - nothing else was done, no-one even came to see my car. Who has to pay? Me, twice in fact. Firstly the cost/excesses (and damage to my no-claims) of repairing the damage and secondly with my taxes paying for a police service, which on two occasions has not benefited me.
This leads me to question whether the law is actually enforced or whether only murder/rape crimes are considered. Yes I can understand that it may not be a priority case but criminal damage is a crime and to me it doesn't seem like it is being enforced. What is the point of having laws that are not being enforced?
Sunday, September 03, 2006
Sunday, August 20, 2006
Racism or Justification?
Over the past couple of weeks security in our airports has been tight, further to alleged terror attacks being planned on flights between UK and the USA. Now as security is relaxed, airport security are being told to "look out for" possible terror suspects.
The problem is that the Muslim Community are raising the issue that this amounts to racist discrimination. Just because someone is part of an ethnic minority, where some members have previously been blamed/guilty for terrorist activities, does it give the Government/Police the right to judge each member of this minority as a possible terrorist?
This is just one of the recent examples where it has been argued that passengers have been targeted just based on the colour of their skin.
The above article states that "People should keep an eye out for suspicious behaviour but nervousness is not enough."
It may be argued that suspicion is increased by the ethnicity of the individual/group. The police may justify this by stating that they must identify any possible connections to terrorist activity including race/background/location and flight details. These ethnic groups have allegedly been involved in previous terrorist scares/attacks isn't it right that they take special care to fully check passengers of this race?
Should security not be vigilant of everyone no matter of race/religion?
It has been argued that Asian/Middle Eastern passengers are being discriminated against, that it is being assumed that they are all related to terrorism in some way.
Does this link to racism? The same argument is raised across the UK that black people are not treated equally with Caucasians where the police are involved (arrests/stop and search etc.)?
The problem is that the Muslim Community are raising the issue that this amounts to racist discrimination. Just because someone is part of an ethnic minority, where some members have previously been blamed/guilty for terrorist activities, does it give the Government/Police the right to judge each member of this minority as a possible terrorist?
This is just one of the recent examples where it has been argued that passengers have been targeted just based on the colour of their skin.
The above article states that "People should keep an eye out for suspicious behaviour but nervousness is not enough."
It may be argued that suspicion is increased by the ethnicity of the individual/group. The police may justify this by stating that they must identify any possible connections to terrorist activity including race/background/location and flight details. These ethnic groups have allegedly been involved in previous terrorist scares/attacks isn't it right that they take special care to fully check passengers of this race?
Should security not be vigilant of everyone no matter of race/religion?
It has been argued that Asian/Middle Eastern passengers are being discriminated against, that it is being assumed that they are all related to terrorism in some way.
Does this link to racism? The same argument is raised across the UK that black people are not treated equally with Caucasians where the police are involved (arrests/stop and search etc.)?
Thursday, March 02, 2006
Does the law benefit society?
The law is meant to protect us, yet there has been much criticism that it is too lenient. Does the law in fact act in the public interest? As a deterrent? Make our world a safer place?
Most people would say NO! I remember reading just recently, an uninsured, no license driver, of a stolen vehicle knocked over and killed a toddler. He got 3 months imprisonment! Is that justice?
However, this creates the argument: Is it justice that we really want or is it revenge? When we think about people being "punished" for their crimes what do we want? A safer society or repayment to the offender for his crimes. An "eye for an eye" some may say.
Do we want a deterrent or punishment?
Whereas our legal system does not allow "like for like" punishments, many victims and their families feel that this treatment is deserved. Does that mean those people not affected by crime can make the best judgement for punishments?
Most people would say NO! I remember reading just recently, an uninsured, no license driver, of a stolen vehicle knocked over and killed a toddler. He got 3 months imprisonment! Is that justice?
However, this creates the argument: Is it justice that we really want or is it revenge? When we think about people being "punished" for their crimes what do we want? A safer society or repayment to the offender for his crimes. An "eye for an eye" some may say.
Do we want a deterrent or punishment?
Whereas our legal system does not allow "like for like" punishments, many victims and their families feel that this treatment is deserved. Does that mean those people not affected by crime can make the best judgement for punishments?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)