So, NatActIrst is resorting to the kneejerk reaction to the crime problem
of shoving more people in prisons.
On Mon, 6 May 2024 06:22:58 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro
<ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
So, NatActIrst is resorting to the kneejerk reaction to the crime problem >>of shoving more people in prisons.
Crime is an easy problem to solve.
Make the prison sentences shorter, but make them so damn unpleasant
that very few if any would dare to risk a repeat of the experience.
Bill.
On Tue, 07 May 2024 04:56:30 +1200, BR <blah@blah.blah> wrote:Correct - you don't think, you just spout whatever you are told to.
On Mon, 6 May 2024 06:22:58 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro >><ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
So, NatActIrst is resorting to the kneejerk reaction to the crime problem >>>of shoving more people in prisons.
Crime is an easy problem to solve.
Make the prison sentences shorter, but make them so damn unpleasant
that very few if any would dare to risk a repeat of the experience.
Bill.
I'm sure you are Right, BR - but I don't think either Chris Luxon or
Mark Mitchell actually promised that.
Here is another view:What a crock, just bullshit in a blog. Not even a pretence at being reasoned - pure rhetoric.
https://nickrockel.substack.com/p/hm-prison-aotearoa
On Tue, 07 May 2024 04:56:30 +1200, BR wrote:I love (sarcastically) the way that people argue that because something didn't work it was therefore a bad idea with zero analysis of the event. That logic (nonsense) is so bad that it almost deserves a prison sentence of its own.
Make the prison sentences shorter, but make them so damn unpleasant that
very few if any would dare to risk a repeat of the experience.
Thatcher tried the old “Short, Sharp, Shock” back in the day.
How well did that work, then?
Make the prison sentences shorter, but make them so damn unpleasant that
very few if any would dare to risk a repeat of the experience.
I love (sarcastically) the way that people argue that because something didn't work it was therefore a bad idea with zero analysis of the event.
That logic (nonsense) is so bad that it almost deserves a prison
sentence of its own.
On Tue, 7 May 2024 07:09:20 -0000 (UTC), Tony wrote:And that my friends is the logic of a person who does not, ever, go deeper than the surface results of something. He does not, and cannot, understand that there may, just possibly (wow!), be a reason why something fails. Finding that reason may be of value, don't you think?
I love (sarcastically) the way that people argue that because something
didn't work it was therefore a bad idea with zero analysis of the event.
That logic (nonsense) is so bad that it almost deserves a prison
sentence of its own.
Which nicely segues into Einstein’s definition of insanity: trying the
same thing over and over, hoping for a different result each time.
On Tue, 7 May 2024 20:06:52 -0000 (UTC), Tony wrote:But you don't actually know, a sheeplike belief in anything you are told.
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
Which nicely segues into Einstein’s definition of insanity: trying the >>> same thing over and over, hoping for a different result each time.
... there may, just possibly (wow!), be a reason why
something fails.
Yeah. It doesn’t work.
It is called analysis, research and testing. SImple concepts for those with scientific training. Difficult for those with shuttered minds however.Finding that reason may be of value, don't you think?
If you think there’s some way to salvage a bad idea, feel free to point
out evidence for it. Otherwise, simply wishing it will work if you try it >enough times isn’t going to cut it.
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
Which nicely segues into Einstein’s definition of insanity: trying the
same thing over and over, hoping for a different result each time.
... there may, just possibly (wow!), be a reason why
something fails.
Finding that reason may be of value, don't you think?
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:So show us the analysis, research and testing that supports your view
On Tue, 7 May 2024 20:06:52 -0000 (UTC), Tony wrote:But you don't actually know, a sheeplike belief in anything you are told. >Apart of course from your English failure - "it doesn't work" is not a reason >why something failed - ever. Actually, it is a logic failure rather than >English.
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
Which nicely segues into Einstein’s definition of insanity: trying the >>>> same thing over and over, hoping for a different result each time.
... there may, just possibly (wow!), be a reason why
something fails.
Yeah. It doesn’t work.
It is called analysis, research and testing. SImple concepts for those with >scientific training. Difficult for those with shuttered minds however.
Finding that reason may be of value, don't you think?
If you think there’s some way to salvage a bad idea, feel free to point >>out evidence for it. Otherwise, simply wishing it will work if you try it >>enough times isn’t going to cut it.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:You spout in about analysis, research and testing but never support
On Tue, 7 May 2024 23:08:44 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On Tue, 7 May 2024 20:06:52 -0000 (UTC), Tony wrote:But you don't actually know, a sheeplike belief in anything you are told. >>>Apart of course from your English failure - "it doesn't work" is not a reason
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
Which nicely segues into Einstein’s definition of insanity: trying the >>>>>> same thing over and over, hoping for a different result each time.
... there may, just possibly (wow!), be a reason why
something fails.
Yeah. It doesn’t work.
why something failed - ever. Actually, it is a logic failure rather than >>>English.
It is called analysis, research and testing. SImple concepts for those with >>>scientific training. Difficult for those with shuttered minds however. >Abuse gone, Piss off you loser.
Finding that reason may be of value, don't you think?
If you think there’s some way to salvage a bad idea, feel free to point >>>>out evidence for it. Otherwise, simply wishing it will work if you try it >>>>enough times isn’t going to cut it.
On Tue, 7 May 2024 23:08:44 -0000 (UTC), TonyAbuse gone, Piss off you loser.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On Tue, 7 May 2024 20:06:52 -0000 (UTC), Tony wrote:But you don't actually know, a sheeplike belief in anything you are told. >>Apart of course from your English failure - "it doesn't work" is not a reason >>why something failed - ever. Actually, it is a logic failure rather than >>English.
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
Which nicely segues into Einstein’s definition of insanity: trying the >>>>> same thing over and over, hoping for a different result each time.
... there may, just possibly (wow!), be a reason why
something fails.
Yeah. It doesn’t work.
It is called analysis, research and testing. SImple concepts for those with >>scientific training. Difficult for those with shuttered minds however.
Finding that reason may be of value, don't you think?
If you think there’s some way to salvage a bad idea, feel free to point >>>out evidence for it. Otherwise, simply wishing it will work if you try it >>>enough times isn’t going to cut it.
On Wed, 8 May 2024 02:21:18 -0000 (UTC), TonyIf someone who deserved respect wrote that I would take heed. But you? Go away and play in your fantasies.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:You spout in about analysis, research and testing but never support
On Tue, 7 May 2024 23:08:44 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On Tue, 7 May 2024 20:06:52 -0000 (UTC), Tony wrote:But you don't actually know, a sheeplike belief in anything you are told. >>>>Apart of course from your English failure - "it doesn't work" is not a >>>>reason
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
Which nicely segues into Einstein’s definition of insanity: trying the... there may, just possibly (wow!), be a reason why
same thing over and over, hoping for a different result each time. >>>>>>
something fails.
Yeah. It doesn’t work.
why something failed - ever. Actually, it is a logic failure rather than >>>>English.
It is called analysis, research and testing. SImple concepts for those with >>>>scientific training. Difficult for those with shuttered minds however. >>Abuse gone, Piss off you loser.
Finding that reason may be of value, don't you think?
If you think there’s some way to salvage a bad idea, feel free to point >>>>>out evidence for it. Otherwise, simply wishing it will work if you try it >>>>>enough times isn’t going to cut it.
your assertions with any of those. You are ignorant and arrogant, Tony
On Tue, 7 May 2024 06:36:21 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro
<ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On Tue, 07 May 2024 04:56:30 +1200, BR wrote:
Make the prison sentences shorter, but make them so damn unpleasant that >>> very few if any would dare to risk a repeat of the experience.
Thatcher tried the old Short, Sharp, Shock back in the day.
How well did that work, then?
Not sharp enough and not shocking enough.
The short sharp shock works in Singapore. Not even the most devout B&D >practitioner would go back for a second helping of what is meted out
to the crims over there.
What would you recommend? A stint in a penthouse suite at a five star
hotel as an attempt to appeal to their better nature?
Bill.
On Tue, 07 May 2024 04:56:30 +1200, BR wrote:
Make the prison sentences shorter, but make them so damn unpleasant that
very few if any would dare to risk a repeat of the experience.
Thatcher tried the old Short, Sharp, Shock back in the day.
How well did that work, then?
The short sharp shock works in Singapore. Not even the most devout B&D practitioner would go back for a second helping of what is meted out to
the crims over there.
If someone who deserved respect wrote that I would take heed.
On Wed, 08 May 2024 17:36:22 +1200, BR wrote:
The short sharp shock works in Singapore. Not even the most devout B&D
practitioner would go back for a second helping of what is meted out to
the crims over there.
You think we should adopt more of their kind of legal system?
Guilty until proven innocent?
Law enforcement having powers to impose penalties before youve even been in court?
And of course, mandatory death penalty for so many offences?
And a Government-controlled press to tell everybody how wonderful their >country is, with no dissent brooked?
You think you can pick and choose the bits of the above you like
and leave out the bits you dont like, and itll still work?
On Thu, 9 May 2024 03:27:16 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro
<ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On Wed, 08 May 2024 17:36:22 +1200, BR wrote:
The short sharp shock works in Singapore. Not even the most devout B&D
practitioner would go back for a second helping of what is meted out
to the crims over there.
You think we should adopt more of their kind of “legal” system?
I made no mention of their legal system other than alluding to how their criminals are punished.
Law enforcement having powers to impose penalties before youve even
been in court?
Where did I recomment such a thing?
And of course, mandatory death penalty for so many offences?
That I don't have a problem with for crimes like first degree murder.
And a Government-controlled press to tell everybody how wonderful their
country is, with no dissent brooked?
Don't look so surprised. We've had that here, except replace "country"
with "government".
On Fri, 10 May 2024 18:26:47 +1200, BR wrote:
On Thu, 9 May 2024 03:27:16 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro
<ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On Wed, 08 May 2024 17:36:22 +1200, BR wrote:
The short sharp shock works in Singapore. Not even the most devout B&D >>>> practitioner would go back for a second helping of what is meted out
to the crims over there.
You think we should adopt more of their kind of legal system?
I made no mention of their legal system other than alluding to how their
criminals are punished.
Ah, so now you make your position clearer: screw all this concept of >prosecution and trials, eh? Forget having an actual legal system,
just toss them in jail and throw away the key! Or drop them down that
gallows trapdoor and call it a day!
Law enforcement having powers to impose penalties before you?ve even
been in court?
Where did I recomment such a thing?
Thats what they do. Didnt you bother to find out what Singapore actually >does before suggesting we follow their example?
And of course, mandatory death penalty for so many offences?
That I don't have a problem with for crimes like first degree murder.
Would that work? Being softer than Singapore? Maybe the crims wont take
you as seriously, eh?
And a Government-controlled press to tell everybody how wonderful their
country is, with no dissent brooked?
Don't look so surprised. We've had that here, except replace "country"
with "government".
Government-controlled country? Sorry, I dont understand.
On Wed, 8 May 2024 03:47:14 -0000 (UTC), Tony wrote:I am expressing an opinion, whether it convinces you or not is not my purpose. In fact I don't care. That you seem to care is interesting.
If someone who deserved respect wrote that I would take heed.
This is not about some personal communication with some frenemy of yours
in private. You are posting on a public forum, for everybody to read. If a >legitimate question is asked and you dodge it and fail to answer, that >reflects on the credibility of your argument.
After all, you are trying to convince all the rest of us, are you not? Or >aren’t you?
On Fri, 10 May 2024 18:26:47 +1200, BR wrote:Your every response above proves that.
On Thu, 9 May 2024 03:27:16 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro
<ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On Wed, 08 May 2024 17:36:22 +1200, BR wrote:
The short sharp shock works in Singapore. Not even the most devout B&D >>>> practitioner would go back for a second helping of what is meted out
to the crims over there.
You think we should adopt more of their kind of “legal” system?
I made no mention of their legal system other than alluding to how their
criminals are punished.
Ah, so now you make your position clearer: screw all this concept of >“prosecution” and “trials”, eh? Forget having an actual “legal >system”,
just toss them in jail and throw away the key! Or drop them down that
gallows trapdoor and call it a day!
Law enforcement having powers to impose penalties before youve even >>>been in court?
Where did I recomment such a thing?
That’s what they do. Didn’t you bother to find out what Singapore actually >does before suggesting we follow their example?
And of course, mandatory death penalty for so many offences?
That I don't have a problem with for crimes like first degree murder.
Would that work? Being softer than Singapore? Maybe the crims won’t take >you as seriously, eh?
And a Government-controlled press to tell everybody how wonderful their
country is, with no dissent brooked?
Don't look so surprised. We've had that here, except replace "country"
with "government".
“Government-controlled country”? Sorry, I don’t understand.
On Fri, 10 May 2024 07:31:34 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro ><ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On Fri, 10 May 2024 18:26:47 +1200, BR wrote:
On Thu, 9 May 2024 03:27:16 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro
<ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On Wed, 08 May 2024 17:36:22 +1200, BR wrote:
The short sharp shock works in Singapore. Not even the most devout B&D >>>>> practitioner would go back for a second helping of what is meted out >>>>> to the crims over there.
You think we should adopt more of their kind of legal system?
I made no mention of their legal system other than alluding to how their >>> criminals are punished.
Ah, so now you make your position clearer: screw all this concept of >>prosecution and trials, eh? Forget having an actual legal system, >>just toss them in jail and throw away the key! Or drop them down that >>gallows trapdoor and call it a day!
That is all your own flim-flam. I have never in favour of the removal
of due process or fair trials. That is an assumption on your part. Due >process could be left unchanged and you could still introduce more
deterrent penalties for serious law breaking.
Just for the record, I would be in favour of minimum penalties forThat has of course been tried before. Trying to impose minimum
some serious crimes. Some of the discretion needs to be taken away
from all the patsy sentencing judges.
That worked well for JohnKey - Mike Hosking and a few others did aLaw enforcement having powers to impose penalties before you?ve even >>>>been in court?
Where did I recomment such a thing?
Thats what they do. Didnt you bother to find out what Singapore actually >>does before suggesting we follow their example?
What if they do? It's not what I was suggesting. I alluded to their
criminal punishments, that's all. Everything else is your own
embellishments.
And of course, mandatory death penalty for so many offences?
That I don't have a problem with for crimes like first degree murder.
Would that work? Being softer than Singapore? Maybe the crims wont take >>you as seriously, eh?
It used to work. There were significantly fewer murders when hanging
was mandatory for capital murder.
And a Government-controlled press to tell everybody how wonderful their >>>> country is, with no dissent brooked?
Don't look so surprised. We've had that here, except replace "country"
with "government".
Government-controlled country? Sorry, I dont understand.
Then either you have impaired cognition or you haven't been paying
attention.
Government-controlled press to tell everybody how wonderful the
government is... Cappiche?
Bill.
On Mon, 13 May 2024 17:21:47 +1200, BR <blah@blah.blah> wrote:Well done. That is the most childish inappropriate piece of bullshit you have published in a year or more. Also, full of sarcasm of course.
On Fri, 10 May 2024 07:31:34 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro >><ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On Fri, 10 May 2024 18:26:47 +1200, BR wrote:
On Thu, 9 May 2024 03:27:16 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro
<ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On Wed, 08 May 2024 17:36:22 +1200, BR wrote:
The short sharp shock works in Singapore. Not even the most devout B&D >>>>>> practitioner would go back for a second helping of what is meted out >>>>>> to the crims over there.
You think we should adopt more of their kind of legal system?
I made no mention of their legal system other than alluding to how their >>>> criminals are punished.
Ah, so now you make your position clearer: screw all this concept of >>>prosecution and trials, eh? Forget having an actual legal system, >>>just toss them in jail and throw away the key! Or drop them down that >>>gallows trapdoor and call it a day!
That is all your own flim-flam. I have never in favour of the removal
of due process or fair trials. That is an assumption on your part. Due >>process could be left unchanged and you could still introduce more >>deterrent penalties for serious law breaking.
And there I was thinking that short and sharp would be getting around
the length of time it currently takes to get a case before a court.
While that did reduce in at least some areas under the last
government, it lengthened in other places. Hard to give a short sharp
chock when it takes say 18 months to get a court decision, BR.
Just for the record, I would be in favour of minimum penalties forThat has of course been tried before. Trying to impose minimum
some serious crimes. Some of the discretion needs to be taken away
from all the patsy sentencing judges.
sentences for some crimes may result in charges under other parts of
statute - both police and lawyers / Judges have a general desire to
see fairness in sentencing; they became quite skilled in making Three
Strikes only apply to those who manifestly deserved such sentences
anyway, avoiding manifestly unjust sentences made a difference to
sentencing in a few cases that received good publicity.
Still, at the end of the day we have idiots voting, and some idiots
making laws, thank goodness for the professionals to be creative in
achieving good results despite those idiots.
That worked well for JohnKey - Mike Hosking and a few others did a
Law enforcement having powers to impose penalties before you?ve even >>>>>been in court?
Where did I recomment such a thing?
Thats what they do. Didnt you bother to find out what Singapore actually >>>does before suggesting we follow their example?
What if they do? It's not what I was suggesting. I alluded to their >>criminal punishments, that's all. Everything else is your own >>embellishments.
And of course, mandatory death penalty for so many offences?
That I don't have a problem with for crimes like first degree murder.
Would that work? Being softer than Singapore? Maybe the crims wont take >>>you as seriously, eh?
It used to work. There were significantly fewer murders when hanging
was mandatory for capital murder.
And a Government-controlled press to tell everybody how wonderful their >>>>> country is, with no dissent brooked?
Don't look so surprised. We've had that here, except replace "country" >>>> with "government".
Government-controlled country? Sorry, I dont understand.
Then either you have impaired cognition or you haven't been paying >>attention.
Government-controlled press to tell everybody how wonderful the
government is... Cappiche?
great job for him, but this new Government hasn't been able to get the
same support - they are happier with the NZ Taxpayer Union running >'independent' and 'spontaneous' public campaigns. It is clear that
NAct1st believe that getting rid of traditional media and running >'information' by social media is just as effective in distracting from
policy put forward through the NZ Initiative . . .Who needs the press
at all?
Bill.
On Mon, 13 May 2024 17:21:47 +1200, BR <blah@blah.blah> wrote:
On Fri, 10 May 2024 07:31:34 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro >><ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On Fri, 10 May 2024 18:26:47 +1200, BR wrote:
On Thu, 9 May 2024 03:27:16 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro
<ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On Wed, 08 May 2024 17:36:22 +1200, BR wrote:
The short sharp shock works in Singapore. Not even the most devout B&D >>>>>> practitioner would go back for a second helping of what is meted out >>>>>> to the crims over there.
You think we should adopt more of their kind of legal system?
I made no mention of their legal system other than alluding to how their >>>> criminals are punished.
Ah, so now you make your position clearer: screw all this concept of >>>prosecution and trials, eh? Forget having an actual legal system, >>>just toss them in jail and throw away the key! Or drop them down that >>>gallows trapdoor and call it a day!
That is all your own flim-flam. I have never in favour of the removal
of due process or fair trials. That is an assumption on your part. Due >>process could be left unchanged and you could still introduce more >>deterrent penalties for serious law breaking.
And there I was thinking that short and sharp would be getting around
the length of time it currently takes to get a case before a court.
While that did reduce in at least some areas under the last
government, it lengthened in other places. Hard to give a short sharp
chock when it takes say 18 months to get a court decision, BR.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 498 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 20:26:20 |
| Calls: | 9,827 |
| Calls today: | 6 |
| Files: | 13,761 |
| Messages: | 6,191,557 |