For those of you who don't have a burglar alarm...
Posted by: BLT on 30 November 2004
I had always planned on fitting a burglar alarm to our house but had never got round to it (one "to-do" in a long list). We were burgled earlier this month, the thieves got in through our back door while we were asleep upstairs. They took two mobile phones, one Laptop, a digital camera, a camcorder and some DVDs. They also took both sets of keys to my six month old Jeep, the jeep itself and one set of keys to my Wife's car (mazda 2).
While the insurance looks like paying for most of this it still doesn't compensate for the grief, hassle and loss of personal possessions (in our case film footage of our son from birth to now).
I don't want to get all "Daily Mail" on you but there are thieves out there and if you don't have an alarm.....
While the insurance looks like paying for most of this it still doesn't compensate for the grief, hassle and loss of personal possessions (in our case film footage of our son from birth to now).
I don't want to get all "Daily Mail" on you but there are thieves out there and if you don't have an alarm.....
Posted on: 04 December 2004 by Steve B
"Reasonable force".
The current law does need changing. How can anyone faced by a burglar in the middle of the night be expected to judge what reasonable force to use? If you don't use enough force to knock the bastard senseless you'll be running the risk that he'll come back at you (possibly with a weapon). He certainly isn't going to make you a nice cup of tea while you call the police is he?
Steve B
The current law does need changing. How can anyone faced by a burglar in the middle of the night be expected to judge what reasonable force to use? If you don't use enough force to knock the bastard senseless you'll be running the risk that he'll come back at you (possibly with a weapon). He certainly isn't going to make you a nice cup of tea while you call the police is he?
Steve B
Posted on: 04 December 2004 by andy c
quote:
but it costs the taxpayer at least £20k per year
This is a vicious circle...
You are prepared to pay high household and contents insurance but not for prisons etc?
You would, in the long term, pay the same out in more tax but less insurance if the crim was locked up?
The problem is it never goes away. Burglary is not the issue here - its drugs. over 80% of all theft/burglary crime is to feed a drug habit. This is apparent by what has been pinched, and talking to offenders that have been caught.
Drug culture is maily responsible for the rise in crime of all kinds, and until this issue is 'treated' then burglary/theft etc will continue to happen.
Also don't forget that 80% of crime is committed by repeat offenders. Identify who they are and lock them up, and the crime rate goes down.
andy c!
PS, don't skimp on the alarm you have fitted either!
Posted on: 04 December 2004 by Derek Wright
To go back to the original subject from the hang draw and quarter discussion
If you have a an outside door with glass in it ensure that you use wired glass or laminated glass so that the glass does not collapse when an atttempt to break in is made.
Now back to the revenge discussion - I am in favour of the legalisation and control of the distribution of drugs
This will reduce the cost of drugs to the user - so reduces the need for stealing to fund the habit and reduces the law enforcement costs
Takes out the distribution network with its need to continually recruit new addicts and its associated lawlessness
Brings into passive supervision all drug takers such that they can be assisted to control their needs and will probably reduce the low usage taking as there would no longer have the attraction of breaking the law
Finally it would increase legitimate tax revenue for the government.
Derek
<< >>
If you have a an outside door with glass in it ensure that you use wired glass or laminated glass so that the glass does not collapse when an atttempt to break in is made.
Now back to the revenge discussion - I am in favour of the legalisation and control of the distribution of drugs
This will reduce the cost of drugs to the user - so reduces the need for stealing to fund the habit and reduces the law enforcement costs
Takes out the distribution network with its need to continually recruit new addicts and its associated lawlessness
Brings into passive supervision all drug takers such that they can be assisted to control their needs and will probably reduce the low usage taking as there would no longer have the attraction of breaking the law
Finally it would increase legitimate tax revenue for the government.
Derek
<< >>
Posted on: 04 December 2004 by andy c
quote:
Brings into passive supervision all drug takers such that they can be assisted to control their needs and will probably reduce the low usage taking as there would no longer have the attraction of breaking the law
Hi Derek,
very good points you put across.
One thing I'd like to add is that the main reason these drugs are used is because people like the effect the drug produces. Then they have to increase the amount of their habit to reproduce the same effect, and to also deal with the side effects induced. The problem is coming off said drug, and again the negative side effects. But you cannot get away from the fact that the cycle of needing to replicate the pleasurable effctcs the drug induces increases the need for it - aka addiction = needing the funds to do the same.
Sorry to go off topic but if you don't appreciiate the need for the alarm is 80% is indirectly fuelled and linked by illicit drugs use...
andy c!
Posted on: 04 December 2004 by Derek Wright
Andy - If drugs are legalised and controlled then the army of pushers would be significantly reduced as they would not have anything to sell so recruitment of future addicts would be reduced.
For existing addicts as they are no longer beyond the law they can seek help without fear of prosecution and/or they would also be able to get additional supplies very cheaply or for free so taking them out of the crime cycle.
In this situation one can be accused of allowing them to commit suicide as a result of the negative effects of the drugs - but as they were doing that any way and also committing crimes to feed the habit - overall we are better off.
However the impact in a few years time, as the long term effects of drug use take their toll in early illness and mortality, will be interesting to observe.
Perhaps it will balance out with the extra NHS costs being balanced out by a reduction in number of pension years to be paid out.
Derek
<< >>
For existing addicts as they are no longer beyond the law they can seek help without fear of prosecution and/or they would also be able to get additional supplies very cheaply or for free so taking them out of the crime cycle.
In this situation one can be accused of allowing them to commit suicide as a result of the negative effects of the drugs - but as they were doing that any way and also committing crimes to feed the habit - overall we are better off.
However the impact in a few years time, as the long term effects of drug use take their toll in early illness and mortality, will be interesting to observe.
Perhaps it will balance out with the extra NHS costs being balanced out by a reduction in number of pension years to be paid out.
Derek
<< >>
Posted on: 04 December 2004 by Martin Payne
Is it true that most of the adverse effects of taking illicit drugs is from the contaminants used to cut their strength?
cheers, Martin
E-mail:- MartinPayne (at) Dial.Pipex.com. Put "Naim" in the title.
cheers, Martin
E-mail:- MartinPayne (at) Dial.Pipex.com. Put "Naim" in the title.
Posted on: 06 December 2004 by BLT
As a recent victim of burglary I still don't believe that 20 years in Jail is an appropriate punishment for the grief that myself and my wife have been caused. I would think that a couple of years is more appropriate.
As far as the drugs issue goes I am in favour of legalisation and government control - I really don't see any other solution. However, the Police stated to me that my theft bore all the hallmarks of the professional thief, rather than that of the junkie stealing for money.
As far as the drugs issue goes I am in favour of legalisation and government control - I really don't see any other solution. However, the Police stated to me that my theft bore all the hallmarks of the professional thief, rather than that of the junkie stealing for money.
Posted on: 06 December 2004 by Roy T
Derek,
a rather hard idea to sell with an election looming but then if the results will only show in the medium or long term it will be a hard idea to sell to both electors and the elected at any time.
a rather hard idea to sell with an election looming but then if the results will only show in the medium or long term it will be a hard idea to sell to both electors and the elected at any time.
Posted on: 06 December 2004 by Derek Wright
Roy - The only way to get this argument across is to just keep spreading it around until a significant number of people see it as common sense.
Raise it at dinner parties, in the pub, in political discussions on forums, letters to papers etc
The reduction in crime I think would be very quick and visible. The effect on the NHS and pensions are in the future and will take a long time to work through the system.
Derek
<< >>
Raise it at dinner parties, in the pub, in political discussions on forums, letters to papers etc
The reduction in crime I think would be very quick and visible. The effect on the NHS and pensions are in the future and will take a long time to work through the system.
Derek
<< >>
Posted on: 06 December 2004 by Mick P
You have my sympathies for being burgled and it is good to see that it did not adversely affect you.
However, a woman who once worked for me had her house riffled about 6 years ago and it affected her for years. She was 49 and went from being a fairly happy go lucky person to a bag of nerves.
She had security doors, alarms and all sorts fitted just to ensure it never happened again and she was so wound up about it that she used to drive home every lunch hour to make sure the house was ok.
She never took a holiday for 4 years and she retired early just to be there 24 hours a day.
The kid who did it, got charged and was found gulity of 88 break ins. His punishment was 180 hours community service.
That little turd deserves 20 years and not a day less. Her life has been irrecoverly ruined because of him.
Also 86% of burglaries are committed by reoffenders, so by locking them up, you kill 86% of the problem.
Being on drugs is no excuse, they did the crime, do dish out the punishment. I have no interest in their human rights but I do care about people like my former colleague.
Fortunately the tide seems to be turning with a private members bill going forward advocating enhanced poaers to householders allowing them to protect thems against burglars.
Both parties are good at latching on to vote catching policies so with luck we may soon see a few crippled burglars walking the streets.
Regards
Mick
However, a woman who once worked for me had her house riffled about 6 years ago and it affected her for years. She was 49 and went from being a fairly happy go lucky person to a bag of nerves.
She had security doors, alarms and all sorts fitted just to ensure it never happened again and she was so wound up about it that she used to drive home every lunch hour to make sure the house was ok.
She never took a holiday for 4 years and she retired early just to be there 24 hours a day.
The kid who did it, got charged and was found gulity of 88 break ins. His punishment was 180 hours community service.
That little turd deserves 20 years and not a day less. Her life has been irrecoverly ruined because of him.
Also 86% of burglaries are committed by reoffenders, so by locking them up, you kill 86% of the problem.
Being on drugs is no excuse, they did the crime, do dish out the punishment. I have no interest in their human rights but I do care about people like my former colleague.
Fortunately the tide seems to be turning with a private members bill going forward advocating enhanced poaers to householders allowing them to protect thems against burglars.
Both parties are good at latching on to vote catching policies so with luck we may soon see a few crippled burglars walking the streets.
Regards
Mick
Posted on: 06 December 2004 by Roy T
You are right, the dinner parties I attend are not quite in the Islington class but preaching to the converted is better than nothing and you do sometimes get a feel good glow be it from the wine or good ideas I can not tell.
I can only think of the Bank Of England reform that was launched in week one by New Labour as something that was truly long term and would pay back and be paying back (if it worked) long after the first term in office.
I can only think of the Bank Of England reform that was launched in week one by New Labour as something that was truly long term and would pay back and be paying back (if it worked) long after the first term in office.
Posted on: 06 December 2004 by Martin Payne
quote:
Originally posted by Mick Parry:
Being on drugs is no excuse, they did the crime, do dish out the punishment.
Mick,
for once, we agree.
Even if sentences aren't changed, the convict should have to take daily/weekly drug tests (I don't know how long traces remain in the system) for a couple of years to prove that they are clean.
cheers, Martin
E-mail:- MartinPayne (at) Dial.Pipex.com. Put "Naim" in the title.
Posted on: 06 December 2004 by Tristram
Mark Steyn has an article in the Telegraph on this very subject.
tw
tw
Posted on: 07 December 2004 by Steve G
Here in Scotland there are further measures being put in place to restrict the numbers being sent to prison. My understanding is that it's going to become pretty rare for short (sub 12 months) prison sentences to be given, and community service orders will be getting much wider use.
My only recent experience in this area was when some youths tried to steal one of my off-road motorbikes a couple of years back. They stole the impliments used in the attempt from a hardware store (including an axe), made two attempts to steal my bike (once observed by several eye witnesses, and the 2nd time caught in the act by the police) and had drugs on them at the time they were caught. All had a long list of previous convictions. When it went to court they pled guilty to one charge and, despite plentiful evidence and witness availability, the crown prosecution service chose not to contest the other charges (I'm assuming to reduce costs etc.). The result - a £200 fine to be paid at £10 a week, no other measures.
As far as alarms etc. are concerned - my house is alarmed and, while we do alarm it each day when we're out, most importantly we alarm the house each night. I wouldn't be happy if my house was broken into when no-one was there, but these things happen and you'd just get on with it. Someone breaking into my house when my family were there - that would be a different story.
My only recent experience in this area was when some youths tried to steal one of my off-road motorbikes a couple of years back. They stole the impliments used in the attempt from a hardware store (including an axe), made two attempts to steal my bike (once observed by several eye witnesses, and the 2nd time caught in the act by the police) and had drugs on them at the time they were caught. All had a long list of previous convictions. When it went to court they pled guilty to one charge and, despite plentiful evidence and witness availability, the crown prosecution service chose not to contest the other charges (I'm assuming to reduce costs etc.). The result - a £200 fine to be paid at £10 a week, no other measures.
As far as alarms etc. are concerned - my house is alarmed and, while we do alarm it each day when we're out, most importantly we alarm the house each night. I wouldn't be happy if my house was broken into when no-one was there, but these things happen and you'd just get on with it. Someone breaking into my house when my family were there - that would be a different story.