Posted September 4, 2007 Yes I realise that, I mean if this became law they wouldn't suddenly find everyone signle person on earth who has download music illegally. No, but they would eventually. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted September 4, 2007 No, but they would eventually. No way, it just means, if they find someone has commited a crime then they will be punished. It doesn't mean they will suddenly set up a massive search and find everyone who has download a few mp3's or movies. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted September 4, 2007 Cameron is doing himself no favours with this in regards to his already poor standing with me... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted September 4, 2007 cameron couldent govern his way out of an easily governed situation. his plan to hold kids back a year is deeply flawed, as is this one. i hope he gets into dancing instead of polatics Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted September 4, 2007 No way, it just means, if they find someone has commited a crime then they will be punished. It doesn't mean they will suddenly set up a massive search and find everyone who has download a few mp3's or movies. But with all the target and performance related pay, they'll want to catch as many of those pesky criminals as possible. There easiest way of doing that is going door to door and arresting every Tom Dick and Harry with illegally obtained copyright material. Owning it's just as illegal as the process of downloading it. Things would get this petty. Sometimes fuzzy law is good. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted September 4, 2007 The point I was trying to make, was that everyone breaks the law in some small way. And I mean everybody, Ever done 31 in a 30? downloaded an album? Walked home from the pub drunk? etc etc. Potentially with a Zero Tolerance rule nobody is safe. And the police would be actively encouraged to arrest people who break the law. Its really not a good system to have. Big Brother is watching you and all that. Its basicaly the government saying you're all guilty prove to us you're innocent. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted September 4, 2007 as noodleman says, every one breaks the law, if a zero tolerence system were to be introduced, there would have to be a major upheavle in the law. i mean drunkeness a crime. well, send the fuzz to digital in newcastle on a thurseday night. its not particularly busy that night and they would still have to make 300ish arrests fairenough if your drunk and acting like a prick, but im usualy so lovely when im drunk. never violent or vandalise. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted September 4, 2007 I think it's a great idea....But too late like EVERY OTHER THING the Govt. does. I'm especially in line with the children thing; I also think their should be higher fines, in order to fund other 'punishments'. Another good idea (I think) which isn't used is to coscript the less dangerous with long sentences into the Army. The Army doesn't want wasters like that though. There's no real solution to them, bar killing them or shipping them off to the Shetlands. Zero Tolerance is scary as everyone breaks the law at some point in the day. Whether is be downloading a track, doing 35 in a 30 zone or being drunk in a pub (yes, illegal). Its a great idea in principle but practically its a no-brainer. The better solution to crime would be more money on policing, and longer sentences with real rehab programmes and education to get kids out of crime in the first place. However, you're still going to get criminals.. Personally I'd like to see the Human Rights Act amended - I think that criminals should be property of the state and should be made to see what the state see fit, i.e digging some canals/railways/roads or tending to old ladies' gardens in chain gangs - but I doubt we'll see the day! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted September 4, 2007 I hope everybody who agrees to this, is prepared to go to prison for anyway mp3's they may have abtained illegally Besides we dont have nearly enough cells at the moment to even begin thinking of implementing zero tolerance. I think its time they started cracking down on piracy. I don't download anything I don't own. And I think all dog owners should have the decency to pick up there dogs turds (just for the record I do have a dog). Also i don't know what the laws about outdoor cats are in the UK, but in my city cats can't roam around free, they have to be kept inside but nobody gets fined for it so every body thinks its ok and does it. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted September 5, 2007 i must agree, the human rights act needs omending. my mate wants to see it abolished, as if you break the law you should be ready for the consiquences. well hell, i break the law most days, swearing in public is a crime after all. to be honest, if were keeping people in prison, i see that they should be made to work, rather then drain the economy. they should also be taught skills that will help them find and hold down jobs after prison, rather then have them on dole or re ofending. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted September 5, 2007 They need to be taught that even though they are in prison, a criminal life is not their only way of life. Some people are just born criminals but there are others who are just born in the wrong circumstance or brought up in no good areas where crime is a common thing. Those people need to be taught to adapt to a respectable livelihood, and maybe even convinced to seek something that they are actually interested in than forcing them to work in a Burger King for the rest of their lives. And I think all dog owners should have the decency to pick up there dogs turds . What about an 80 year old man who can't bend down to pick it up or decides not to one day because his back is feeling particularly bad? Even though he cannot physically do it he is still liable under the Zero Tolerance policy and receives the same penalty as a 20 year old who lets his dog shit over peoples front lawns. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted September 5, 2007 well, if i couldent pick up my dogs turd, id decide it was time to get rid of it and strangle it. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted September 5, 2007 But he's 80 man. He has scraggly little hands...and no thumbs from a horrific baking accident. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted September 5, 2007 as a student of criminology i can assure you that normal people don't concider legal consequences as an argument not to do something. there's probably a word to shorten this sentence up, but i don't know it. what however does have them relinquish the prospect of a criminal act is social reflection. "what are people going to say". this is however in contrary to the criminal minds, the not so normal people, but there's few of those around. so to toughen up the sentencing has only little effect. most people who are engaged in criminal activity do so because of certain social and economic pressures. these pressures are the root of the problem that is criminality. by zero tolerance policing the government is merely cutting the weeds instead of turning the soil**. it is cowardly and ethically unwarranted. ** i made that figure of speech up. sounds great even if i do say so myself true criminal minds are a rare species*, it is therefore quite unpragmatic to program your policing around the assumption that every person who commits a crime is a criminal. a government that faces high figures of criminallity needs to educate it's people, redesign or review certain social structures and thoroughly fight poverty. * and i don't even mean criminal masterminds. as you might know, the criminal mind is a biological deviation, often reffered to as "uomo criminalis" in academic circles. of this niche even less are born with considerable intelligence. there are of course shades of grey too. normal people can commit serious crimes, such as murder. i'm not saying that these people should have a nice little chat with a social assistant, and everything will be fine. leave the objectives written above to the government itself and the ongoing criminality to the justice department. these offices are separated for a reason after all. now on a more personal note: i think zero tolerance policing is a completely disgusting idea. how emotionally detached can you possibly get from peoples problems... edit: forgive typos and incorrect spelling and grammatics. english is like i sixth language, i try my best. i always appreciate being corrected. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted September 5, 2007 But he's 80 man. He has scraggly little hands...and no thumbs from a horrific baking accident. If he can't bend down he should be hiring someone to walk his dog. What would he do if he dropped the leash (and he was in a baking accident so that could easily happen) just let it roam free. What if it saw a cat or squirrel or something it would probably rip his arm out. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted September 5, 2007 ok, so old man stamps the dog to death. its not that hard really, i mean, provided you stun it in the first couple. if its a small dog its done in seconds, a st bernard is tricky, need to get it asleep ot lying down. all in all the best ones are the lower end of the medium spectrum, small emough you can get a good stomp in, but not so small as to be withough a fight. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted September 5, 2007 Look guys; stop arguing.....They're talking about a crack down on REAL crime; as to stop the country going even more into meltdown. Not to set a bzillion quid fine and 50 years in jail for someone who's downloaded a free song now and again, sung buy someone who earns WAY more than they deserve anyway. The Army doesn't want wasters like that though. There's no real solution to them, bar killing them or shipping them off to the Shetlands. Have you not seen some of the armed forces in everyday life??....Wasters; but in the armed forces, they're at least doing something. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted September 5, 2007 Look guys; stop arguing.....They're talking about a crack down on REAL crime; as to stop the country going even more into meltdown. Not to set a bzillion quid fine and 50 years in jail for someone who's downloaded a free song now and again, sung buy someone who earns WAY more than they deserve anyway. But this zero tolerance stance is the stepping stone to all the privacy infringements that people in this thread are bothered about. How would you define REAL crime? Stuff that you think is bad? What if the person in charge did put downloading mp3s down as REAL crime because of MPAA/RIAA lobbying, and thought louts hanging out on streets was okay because that's just kids having fun? Your definition of REAL crime may not be the same as others. REAL crime, it's a scary thing, and needs a bold font. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted September 5, 2007 Look guys; stop arguing.....They're talking about a crack down on REAL crime Littering, jaywalking, loitering, obstructing a public highway, all real crimes, and something that everybody has done. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted September 5, 2007 Have you not seen some of the armed forces in everyday life??....Wasters; but in the armed forces, they're at least doing something. Maybe a few are. Most are not. The Army won't accept masses of scrotes off the streets, it just wouldn't work. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted September 5, 2007 Look guys; stop arguing.....They're talking about a crack down on REAL crime; as to stop the country going even more into meltdown. Not to set a bzillion quid fine and 50 years in jail for someone who's downloaded a free song now and again, sung buy someone who earns WAY more than they deserve It is actually. Zero Tolerance means that all crimes are punished to their most severe. It also means that more crimes will not be tolerated such as illegal downloading. Anybody who uses Sky it can tell when you are using peer to peer downloading however the small difference is that at the moment police are cracking down on those who distribute it not those who download it. Same with drugs, police have a more relaxed view on users because the main focus is to get dealers. Under Zero Tolerance that doesn't matter though, everybody gets the full punishment for any crime they commit, no matter how menial. Once that incentive comes in to start pulling in more arrests you can bet police will be looking into ways to see who's downloading what. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted September 5, 2007 Littering, jaywalking, loitering, obstructing a public highway, all real crimes, and something that everybody has done. I never said they weren't crimes Loitering isn't really though, the others are though, especially when it comes to the roads. Maybe a few are. Most are not. The Army won't accept masses of scrotes off the streets, it just wouldn't work. You'd be surprised; after a couple of months these people would be pretty different. I think a conscription to the "jobless for too long and depending on the state" is in order though. It is actually. Zero Tolerance means that all crimes are punished to their most severe. It also means that more crimes will not be tolerated such as illegal downloading. Anybody who uses Sky it can tell when you are using peer to peer downloading however the small difference is that at the moment police are cracking down on those who distribute it not those who download it. Same with drugs, police have a more relaxed view on users because the main focus is to get dealers. Under Zero Tolerance that doesn't matter though, everybody gets the full punishment for any crime they commit, no matter how menial. Once that incentive comes in to start pulling in more arrests you can bet police will be looking into ways to see who's downloading what. I know, but the severity of illegally DL things withough making a profit etc is hardly very servre anyway; what I meant is that the government is mainly aiming this "initiative" at street crimes and that kind of thing. One thing I'd like them to take a hard look is driving. It seems most people can't even use a roundabout or duel+ carriageways properly. But this zero tolerance stance is the stepping stone to all the privacy infringements that people in this thread are bothered about. No...it's not; there are NO privacy infringements to worry about. How would you define REAL crime? Stuff that you think is bad? What if the person in charge did put downloading mp3s down as REAL crime because of MPAA/RIAA lobbying, and thought louts hanging out on streets was okay because that's just kids having fun? Your definition of REAL crime may not be the same as others. Yep....I'm sure that some suits see DLing things you haven't paid for as bad as chavs stabbing people. REAL crime, it's a scary thing, and needs a bold font Yep; it does, and so do these parts of Mormon Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted September 5, 2007 Zero tolerance policing isn't about coming down harder on major crimes like GBH and Murder. It's the idea of throwing the book at people who commit minor crimes in the hope that reducing that will have a knock on effect on more serious crimes. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted September 5, 2007 to put it simply, there are no crimes that are any more real then outhers. the severity of a crime is circumstantial. many psychologists belive truely developed morals recognise that in diffrent situations an action can be right or wrong, and intention is important. and dont diss mormons, while i dont share there belifes, they have a strong sense of family interaction and kindness. also calling anyone a moron for not sharing your veiws surgests a very threatend mind. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted September 5, 2007 You'd be surprised; after a couple of months these people would be pretty different. I think a conscription to the "jobless for too long and depending on the state" is in order though. Yeah, but do you think they'd bother? Really? I know I wouldn't. Yep; it does, and so do these parts of Mormon And wow, look at you turn your plausible argument into one with childish insults. Way to go. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
