 |
 |
|
| VIEWERS -TOP TOPICS-WKLY/ARCHIVE *HOME-PT 2 PAGE ONE/ PAGE TWO/PAGE THREE/ & PAGE FOUR | ||
Seven out of ten young criminals who are let off custody re-offend. * Daily Mail
Friday, June 9 -2006 By Matthew HickleyHome Affairs Correspondent TEENAGE DRIFTERS
COST £21BILLION
[£21,000,000,000] A GROWING ARMY of teenage drifters who refuse to take jobs or stay in education could cost the Taxpayer £21 billion, it was revealed yesterday. More than one in ten 16 to 18-year-olds is dropping out and living on benefits, official figures show. There are 220,000 of
the drifters in England, up 20,000 since last year, according to figures
from the Department for Education and Skills. Known as NEETS-not in
education, employment or training-they are estimated to cost the taxpayer an
average of £97,000 each during their lifetime. The cost of supporting them
includes unemployment benefit, handouts to mothers, clearing up crime and their
failure to pay taxes. [THIS HAS HAPPENED DURING
NINE YEARS OF BLAIRDOM WITH ITS ULTRA LIBERAL POLICES WHICH ARE NOW COMING HOME
TO ROOST.] LABOUR’S drive to target young
criminals with ‘tough’ community punishments was described as a failure last
night as figures revealed 7 out of 10 -commit more crimes within a
year. At the same time the re-offending tare for those let off with non-custodial sentences has risen, with 70% -now caught offending again within 12 months. The HOME OFFICE statistics
are a severe blow to Labour’s strategy of using jail as a ‘last resort’ when trying to rehabilitate
young offenders, and raise grave doubts over whether the range of new cheaper
community sentences are working. Probation officials warned
last night that youngsters committing their first offences are largely ignored
due to lack of resources and that serious efforts to turn them away from crime
are only made when thy are already set in their ways. In 1997 a total of 183,
671 young offenders aged ten to 17 were cautioned or convicted for crimes
in England and Wales, while 7,083 - or just under four per cent-ere sentenced
to custody. By 2004 the number cautioned or convicted had risen to 201,198, but the number locked up fell to 6,325- 3.1 per cent, while thousands more were given community services. The total number of juvenile
re-offenders who are caught leapt from 6,693 in 2000 to 9,516 in 2004. Figures published by the Home Office yesterday analyse the number of offenders given different punishments who are caught re-offending within 12 months. For those released from custody the figure was 78.2% -Meaning only one in five kept out of trouble for
a year- slightly worse than the figure for 2000. For Community punishments
the re-offending ate averaged 70% -rising to 76% - for curfew orders, where offenders are tagged and forced to stay at home during certain hours. For supervision
orders, where young criminals are watched closely by probation staff and
required to take part in activities such a repairing criminal damage,
73% -almost three quarters-were caught committing more crimes within a year. Of all those who re-offended
after completing a community penalty. 70% -were given another community penalty, while only 14.5 per cent were locked up. For those originally
convicted of a violent offence, the re-offending rate rose to 38% -in 2004, up slightly
from 37.5 % -in 2000. Critics point out that the
rate are almost certainly a substantial under estimate, because
police only detect 25% of all crimes and only young criminals who get
caught show up in he figures. The statistics reveal a depressing picture of he ‘revolving door’ of criminal justice. The more teenagers come into contact wit the court system, the more likely they re to offend again. Those with seven
previous convictions have an 80% -chance of re-offending,
rising to 90% -for 12 or more
convictions. Community punishments for
juveniles are far cheaper than custody. A one-year rehabilitation Order costs £3000,
compared with £42,000 for a year in a Young Offenders’ Institution. But
opposition critics claimed the cheaper punishment s appeared to be failing. Shadow Home Secretary David
Davis, said: Those on community
punishments should be less likely to offend since presumably they are less
serious crimes. [Not true Mr Davis-as many on community punishment should have ended up
in jail but for the lack of space and for no other reason] The fact they are continuing
to re-offend represents a continuing failure by this Government. ‘Community punishments could
have a serious role to play but only if they are properly enforced.’ Harry Fletcher of the
National Association of Probation Officers called for more resources for
earlier intervention when teenagers are first getting into trouble. ‘But there simply aren’t the
resources to do that,’ he said. ‘We only get involved once
they are in trouble.’ Mr Fletcher said most first
time offenders let off with a police warning did not receive any follow-up
intervention, even though that was the stage when support could make the most
difference. But he stressed that a 70 per
cent re-offending rate could not be seen as a success given the nature of the
offenders in question-some of the ‘most difficult teenagers in the country.’ The Home Office also claimed
the figures demonstrated success in tackling re-offending on the basis
that the overall rate -including the minor first time offenders let off with a
police warning -was *41.3per cent four years earlier. A Home Office spokesman
said: ‘The Government believes in
custodial sentences for the most serious and persistent offenders. However. It
should be a last resort. * * * [Our answer to the Home
Office is that they are very efficient at something at least -their Statistics
-but they should not try to convince the public that a failure rate of 70% -80%-90% -is a success? As the figures are those of the Home Office we have to conclude they are as close to perfection as they can be. BUT as everyone knows one can get Statistics to prove anything if you use the appropriate input. * [Well! what the Home Office calls a serious crime
will in many victims’ eyes be any persistent yobbery being
carried out in their community. When offenders are NOT attending their
community punishments (unless they have been sent on a continental holiday
curtsy of the Taxpayer) they are no doubt as confirmed above up to their old
tricks. Any offender not turning up for community punishment without a valid
reason should be immediately sent to a young offenders institution. If the Home Office is running out of space
call on the Polish carpenters and other trades and get building -pronto!]
With such a furore taking
place on the Sentencing guidelines which with the support of the Lord Chief
Justice have resulted in inadequate sentences for many serious crimes we will
no doubt hear a multitude of widespread comment on ways to correct the present
diabolical system but what you will NOT HEAR is any suggestion that more
PRISONS are needed. If every persistent offender
who had been given community punishment -many of whom never attend and if the
sentencing for many crimes made more realistic as to be acceptable to the
victim [hanging not an option at the moment though certain heinous crimes
certainly deserve the death penalty] there would be a need to partake in a
large Prison building programme. In the short term temporary buildings would
suffice-, which could be built by the 500,000 missing illegals -Human Rights
legislation permitting? * A snippet from the pen of Daily
Mail reporter LITTLEJOHN on Friday, June 16-2006 on the English
so-called ‘Justice System’ on Sentencing Guidelines so strenuously defended by
the Lord Chief Justice and now in freefall in a Monopoly game ‘Go to jail’
realism or takes a card to win reprieve: ‘THE American legal system has
its flaws. BUT anyone who has ever watched LAW & ORDER [Channel 5] will
know there is a simple way to stop the sentencing shambles in the country. Instead of starting with a
sentence and working backwards until a killer given 18 years gets out in 6, we
should do what they do in the USA and set a minimum
term. THEN EVERYONE will know the very least
criminals will serve behind bars before they become eligible for parole. Fifteen -to- live? That’ll
do nicely. * [On another subject but having such an affect on so many people aware of the term POLITICAL
CORRECTNESS -Is a term relatively new in
our country. In consulting many dictionaries up to 1966 but no doubt followed
the 1970,s Civil Rights campaign in America which in our country conjures up
only one phrase - Political Interference. Our American cousins know a great deal about Political Correctness, which has plagued their society for many a year and they can have it. In our island home it is a
term inconsistent with FREEDOM of SPEECH -We have in English Law
sufficient legislation to cope with excessive abuse and anyone pushing his luck
unreasonably as to endanger our greatest legacy from the past should be dealt
with most severely. None of us is unaware how volatile
the question of one expressing our frank thoughts is in the world of today -but
a search through past history will show it is not only a modern phenomenon. The high sensitivity now
engendered in our once ‘Let Live’ society has cowed many who have much of value
to relate in the interests of curbing the few. We have the title of Commission
for Racial Equality a great insult to the greater majority of British
citizens who do not press matters too far. We now learn that the objectionable
name is to be changed -for many too late because as with the term MULTICULTURALISM -has been found by the courageous
stance by the chairman of the CRE Trevor Phillips to admit the responsibility
for the Ghettoization of England and the failure of INTEGRATION. We raised this matter many
years ago and regret that the ultra-liberal left were left unhindered in their
destructive politically correct agenda, which has been responsible for the enormous
increase in CRIME and the undermining of traditional values in the community. For many people in England the
word political-correctness is like a red flag to a bull-dog. * Of course we would have to
convert the Lord Chief Justice who disbelieves the need for custodial sentences
for a majority of criminals and for those it is a short vocation with human
rights oversight to make their stay shorter still * * * A RAT IN TWENTY IS A LEADER One
of the most closely guarded secrets of the Korean War was why there were no
escapes of American prisoners. Chinese
wanted to economize on manpower. So,
instead of keeping all the prisoners under heavy guard, they watched them for a
day or two, and picked out all the ‘leader’ figures: anyone who seemed to have
imagination or enterprise, They were guarded heavily. The rest were left with almost no guard at all. And without leaders no one tried to escape. The “dominant” types, the
Chinese found, were always precisely five per cent of the total number of
soldiers. The same figure applies to
animals. In experiments concerned with
the effect of overcrowding among rats, Dr John B. Calhoun of the U.S. National
Institute of Mental Health discovered the
“dominant” rats numbered five per cent. The rats were put into four
cages, all interconnected. There was enough room for all the rats to be fairly
comfortable. But what happened was that two of the rats were very dominant
indeed- “king rats”. Each of theses two took a cage for himself, and
established himself in it with his harem.
The rest had to crowd into the remaining two cages, creating a kind of
slum. And now the really
interesting thing happened. The
remainder of the dominant five per cent did not actively challenge the
authority of the “king rats”. Instead,
they formed themselves into “criminal” gangs and went around attacking other
rates, stealing food, and generally creating a nuisance. Rats normally have an extremely elaborate
courting ritual, which is never violated under normal conditions. The criminal gangs abandoned it and went in
for rape. A percentage of them became
homosexuals. The point I am making should
be ominously clear. Any society needs
to provide an outlet for the dominant five per cent. A hundred years ago [written in 1970] a boy of this sort might run away to look for
gold in Alaska. There are many outlets
for the urge to adventure. [Regretfully in Blairdom we have the politically correct and
compensation culture and much else to destroy a vigorous and healthy youth.] G.K Chesterton once remarked
that an adventure is only an inconvience rightly considered, and an
inconvenience is an adventure wrongly considered. And It was A.H. Whitehead who pointed out that civilization
cannot survive without adventure. [In the playground and out in the countryside.] Civilization may be defined as an attempt to do away with the
inconvenience of living: so in a sense, civilization aims at the destruction of
adventure. If Professor Whitehead is
right, then civilization is aiming at its own destruction. CONSIDER: in another hundred years’ time, (2070)
the whole earth will be covered with one enormous New York. What will the
dominant five per cent do with its urge to rise above the other 95 per cent? The exploration of Space? But the cost of transporting
a single human being to Mars would be many millions of pounds; it could never
be less than thousands. [A possibility in 2006 for the Government to consider for the hardcore
YOBS and members of the feeble opposite Front Bench?] And by 2060 A.D. five per
cent may amount to a billion human beings.
No, the problem must be solved here [Shame!], on the EARTH. The frustration of to many
of the five per cent is the significance of the steadily rising crime rate, of
the increasing figures for suicide and insanity. It is the reason behind the waves of violence that pass over
normally law-abiding cities-Amsterdam, Belfast, Chicago- and for the periodic
outbreaks of war in the world. [And when history has a Tony and George partnership]
There is
something in five per cent of men that doesn’t like peace, doesn’t want peace.
It wants a sense of purpose, of doing something important, creative, and
adventurous. We all rightly deplore the
conflict in Vietnam [As we do in 2006 of the illegal war in Iraq in 2003-still raging now
as a civil war and our precarious and dangerous presence in Afghanistan.] and its loss of life. But we might, for a moment, take a scientific attitude. While
these small-localized conflicts are going on, there is little chance of a major
war. -[Not
so sure in 2006 with the Iran factor -a nuclear power?] The smaller conflicts may
act as a safety valve. It is like two
bullies swearing at each other across a fence; the prospect of actual blows is
remote. What then, am I suggesting?
First of all, that we should face this biological fact about the dominant five
per cent and stop generalizing about “mankind” as if it consisted of only one
sort of person. Once this is faced, we can
become practical about it. We need
thorough investigation by a team of scientists drawn from all over the world of
ways in which creative or aggressive impulses can be used. The first great step would e recognition
that it is a problem in which all society must co-operate. In a small town with no
facilities for the young, the boys hang around in groups. If someone has the
sense to organize clubs and dances, all the explosiveness goes out of the
situation. It is “socialized”. Most
social violence today comes from people who do not feel “socialized”,
who have a sharp sense of “apartness” from society. Colin Wilson (1970) * * * [Font altered0bolding &
underlining used-comments in brackets] JUNE/06*
* www.noliberties.com[Latest Addition - June07] * * *
*
Daniel Hannan - Forming an OPPOSITION to the EU
*
VOTE MAY -2007
WITH THE ONLY PARTY WITH A MANDATE TO SET YOU FREE
THE UK INDEPENDENCE PARTY
TO RECLAIM YOUR DEMOCRACY DON'T VOTE FOR THE TRIPARTITE PARTIES IN WESTMINSTER BUT SMALL PARTIES THAT SPEAK THEIR MINDS WITHOUT SPIN AND LIES. *
ONLY WILL BRING DEMOCRACY BACK TO THE ENGLISH PEOPLE *
* MAY/07
[All underlined words have a separate bulletin]
|
||
