From the BBC:

"A Glasgow man who has been jailed 32 times is starting a new sentence for taking part in an armed raid in Edinburgh while out on bail.

Paul Duffy, 35, from Castlemilk, was part of a four-strong gang who smashed their way into a car dealer's home.

The High Court in Edinburgh heard that Duffy was freed on bail nine days before the raid in February.

He had 52 previous convictions for crimes including robbery and carrying a knife."

This cannot be right. Surely it is time to throw away the key?

perhaps they should send him somewhere warm to repent as going to prison seems not to be a deterrent

:loopy: :loopy:

Where would they send him? A hard day's work down t' Pits would probably kill him, but there's no active Pits to work in anyway, Old Ma Thatcher shut 'em all in the 80s.

<don's flak suit>

Perhaps if there was a viable alternative available to him he wouldn't feel the need to go out stealing things?

<hides behind ceremonial copy of the Guardian>

perhaps they should send him somewhere warm to repent as going to prison seems not to be a deterrent

A furnace? :hihi:

A furnace? :hihi:

:hihi::hihi::hihi::hihi:

So the career criminal of the 50s 60s and 70s is not yet quite extinct, The Jack the lad who is forever in and out of the nick for the same or similar offences is supposed to be a thing of the past now- they even used to make comedy films about his type and in reality the only time something was really done about him was when he killed somebody.

Someone has to be shot or stabbed before the authorities will do anything serious to him, and even then itll not be a lot because the nicks are full to bursting and his kind have more people willing to rub his tummy and bemoan his hard hard life than ever at any other time in history.

We might as well just let them get on with it, let them rob, rape, kill- do ALL of the things that any society with guts would skin them alive for because our society now is a gutless, toothless tiger that favours the criminal and his ilk.

Its time to let them all out, all of them and let them run riot on the streets because only then will the "Lets treat them with kindness and understanding, the poor dears" brigade shut their vacuous, society wrecking, dainty little gobs.

So the career criminal of the 50s 60s and 70s is not yet quite extinct


Perhaps not, but this guy's case doesn't relate to such people. This guy is a drug addict, and if he could get his heroin clean from the NHS at a cost to the public purse of maybe ten quid a year, he wouldn't ever have had to commit a single criminal act to fund his addiction; we wouldn't have spent untold thousands on court costs to try him, and untold more thousands on jail costs to house him; and the drug dealer scum would never have received a penny.

Where's the downside again? I keep being told there is one.

Perhaps not, but this guy's case doesn't relate to such people. This guy is a drug addict, and if he could get his heroin clean from the NHS at a cost to the public purse of maybe ten quid a year, he wouldn't ever have had to commit a single criminal act to fund his addiction; we wouldn't have spent untold thousands on court costs to try him, and untold more thousands on jail costs to house him; and the drug dealer scum would never have received a penny.

Where's the downside again? I keep being told there is one.

Actually the more I think about this, the more reasonable it sounds.

As I typed that last line it dawned on me that its a bloody good idea.

As I typed the LAST line it occurred to me that the nhs are nuts for not doing that.

Actually the more I think about this, the more reasonable it sounds.

As I typed that last line it dawned on me that its a bloody good idea.

As I typed the LAST line it occurred to me that the nhs are nuts for not doing that.

They used to, up until about 1968. Up until about 1968, almost every heroin addict in the country was a productive, useful member of society holding down a job and paying taxes, rather than a criminal scrote sucking up public funds; moreover, since drug-dealers could not make money by selling heroin to addicts, they never wasted any time and effort in trying to create more addicts.

Since they stopped, and the drug dealers have taken over supply, the price of heroin has skyrocketed forcing addicts to take ever more desperate and criminal measures to raise the cost, and the dealers, with a vested interest in selling heroin to as many people as possible, have increased the number of addicts from barely three thousand to well over a quarter of a million.

Some people still don't make the connection.

Perhaps not, but this guy's case doesn't relate to such people. This guy is a drug addict, and if he could get his heroin clean from the NHS at a cost to the public purse of maybe ten quid a year, he wouldn't ever have had to commit a single criminal act to fund his addiction; we wouldn't have spent untold thousands on court costs to try him, and untold more thousands on jail costs to house him; and the drug dealer scum would never have received a penny.

Where's the downside again? I keep being told there is one.

If they'd have hanged the b****** after his third offence it wouldn't have been a drain on the public purse at all and it would send out a signal to all junkies not to follow a life of crime to support their addiction.

Giving people a career choice of life on benefits plus free, state-sponsored, drug addiction is sheer lunacy, what would happen if we all chose that path?

What they should do, is do more to prevent junkies getting addicted to Heroin etc in the first place IMO.

Like arresting, charging, and detaining the drug pushers.

What they should do, is do more to prevent junkies getting addicted to Heroin etc in the first place IMO.

Like arresting, charging, and detaining the drug pushers.

but there is money to be made doing it, so more would become pushers to replace them ...

but there is money to be made doing it

only because the NHS aren't providing the drug at cost any more.

If they'd have hanged the b****** after his third offence...


Why make him commit any offences at all? Why not give him the drugs he needs and let him go get a job and pay taxes?

Why make him commit any offences at all? Why not give him the drugs he needs and let him go get a job and pay taxes?

Yeah, thats how it is isnt it...
Society made him a crim because the nhs wont give him free drugs anymore..
Are you serious????

Yeah, thats how it is isnt it...
Society made him a crim because the nhs wont give him free drugs anymore..
Are you serious????

Why wouldn't I be? We used to provide the free drugs, and the criminal problems caused by drug addicts used to be zero. Now we don't, and they're huge.


How could anyone not be serious about reducing that criminal problem back to zero again, when we already have a method which is known and proven to do so?

only because the NHS aren't providing the drug at cost any more.

I know - read your earlier post with interest.

I was just making the point that as things stand, jailing pushers would just result in new pushers emerging.

Maybe they should send people like this for a stint in the army that would give them a boot up the backside as they wouldnt take no crap of anyone there.

I know - read your earlier post with interest.

I was just making the point that as things stand, jailing pushers would just result in new pushers emerging.

Not if the law was allowed to put the fear of God into anyone who so much as looks sideways at an illegal drug.

But I don't see that ever happening.

when you are playing 'fear of god' against 'making more money than you can dream of' there will always be people willing to gamble - particularly if what they will get otherwise is 20 years on the Glasgow dole queue.