Comments for http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/07/are_crime_victims_neglected_by.html http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/07/are_crime_victims_neglected_by.html en-gb 30 Thu 27 Nov 2014 10:09:44 GMT+1 A feed of user comments from the page found at http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/07/are_crime_victims_neglected_by.html Brian Berlin http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/07/are_crime_victims_neglected_by.html?page=99#comment275 At 4:02pm on 21 Jul 2010, ruffled_feathers wrote:'173. At 09:00am on 21 Jul 2010, Brian Berlin wrote:ruffled_feathers wrote: "......Are you VERY cross....?"Yes, and so should you be :-)'I don't get very cross with the media. Without them we might never have known about the expenses scandal with the MPs. The Mail and others on occasion have taken on worthwhile causes.There are bigger issues to get cross about, but if you dont' actually do something with the getting cross bit, then it doesn't seem to get anywhere."Good point, but just because the tabloids sometimes do good things doesn't, in my opinion, make them worthwhile overall. A bit of good (mostly UTTERLY cynical) doesn't excuse a lot of harm. About bigger causes - well, yes and no. I really do think the right-whinge (sic) tabloids are at the root of so much that is unworthy about our society. How can there be democracy when most people in the UK are TOLD what to think by the tabloids?Remember the Gerry Springer show? There used to be a guy out of shot, who exaggerated and instigated (if necessary) the lumpen audience's reactions, feeding back to them what they should be doing (exaggerated gasps of disapproval, gestures of contempt and so on, or even looking thoughtful and touched). The tabloids are like that. And again, they have POLITICAL AND ECONOMIC REASONS for doing that. It isn't just a matter of chance.And, finally, YES, we should do something about it. But it's hard to know what, in this case, at least legally. All I personally can think to do is to try to counter-balance the overwhelmingly tabloid-driven comments on here with a bit from the other side, so to speak. Thu 22 Jul 2010 09:10:31 GMT+1 Rufus McDufus http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/07/are_crime_victims_neglected_by.html?page=99#comment274 196. At 1:03pm on 21 Jul 2010, Mark wrote:...A rich person stealing a loaf of bread is much worse than a homeless man doing it.A well educated, rich, supported person committing assault is much worse than a badly educated, poor & abandaned person cimmiting the same crime.I agree with a lot of your post but disagree with the last sentence. Yes a homeless person has basic needs which may lead to them needing to steal food, but assault? Would you say the same for (say) murder? Does the amount of wealth a person possesses affect the seriousness of assault? I disagree entirely. Thu 22 Jul 2010 08:51:35 GMT+1 JDavisabc http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/07/are_crime_victims_neglected_by.html?page=98#comment273 Neglect isn't the right word. In some cases they are treated worse than the criminals....unless your name is Conrad Black of course.He has just been released after being jailed in the US on fraud and racketeering charges. He is also a member of the house of lords, of which John Presscot and Mandelson are also members. The corruption of this country isn't in it's foot-folk, or the petty criminals or in the man on the street...it is in GOVERNMENT, the HOUSE OF LORDS and BUCKINHAM PALACE. The people, the public, the unwitting sheople are just lazy and choose to excuse it as 'normal'. Thu 22 Jul 2010 07:37:12 GMT+1 krokodil http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/07/are_crime_victims_neglected_by.html?page=98#comment272 Homeowners should be able to place landmines around their house to stop burglars. Thu 22 Jul 2010 07:02:36 GMT+1 DibbySpot http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/07/are_crime_victims_neglected_by.html?page=98#comment271 The victims of crime are neglected and this is a dreadful inditement of society.However, perhapàs the more criminal part is that the criminal is simply trained to be a better criminal and almost no action is taken to deal with their underlying problems of drug abuse, education, and self esteem.Is it any surprice the re-offending rate and the creation of more victims of crime is so high? Thu 22 Jul 2010 07:02:11 GMT+1 SnoddersB http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/07/are_crime_victims_neglected_by.html?page=97#comment270 The Criminal Justice System says it all. Thje Lawyers are just there for the criminal and not the victim. Infact the victim and their family do not count in law at all. No wonder this country is a magnet for all EU criminals.It is time tha justice system changed to support the victims and their families and the criminal when sentenced served the whole sentence and that it was appropriate. Minimum life for murder and manslaughter with the return of capital punishment for the worst offenders which would make more room in prisons for those who have shorter sentences. Thu 22 Jul 2010 05:03:00 GMT+1 KingLeeRoySandersJr http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/07/are_crime_victims_neglected_by.html?page=97#comment269 I am applauded at my Internet's abuse by government. BBC's, Have Your Say, asks: Are crime victims neglected by the penal system? At the least but society it's self is the greatest criminal committing the most unforgivable crime. The world that exist is one in which the public of any given country have become mind controlled creatures never aware and animated only by that dictated by the government. The Governments of the Nations on This Earth are Mad Beast with No Consciousness and No Instinct. If they are not worshiped by their people, they attack and what is asked of it's people are their thoughts, their actions, their bodies and their life. You and your constituents have continued to show your malice and your refusal to allow your citizens of your nations a soul of their own. Through your censorship you call moderation you soothsay your populous to hide the terror of what you are, what the world is and what they are. The world humanity created is it's worst enemy, destroying any concept of reality. The brain through over 200,000 years of abusive authorities is missing specific mass and today is mental incompetent. Everything it builds topples upon it's self. Corporeal entities imitate the reasoning and the actions of each other. Human beings are at the top of the Earth's evolutionary process. They are the God they worship in strength but without a mind to reason in a instant unknowingly destroys it's self never even knowing it came about. Thu 22 Jul 2010 04:28:58 GMT+1 RedSandy200 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/07/are_crime_victims_neglected_by.html?page=97#comment268 Yes,is the short answer, but while ever the misguided left wing do-gooders are shouting the loudest and thus fooling M.P.s into thinking there are more votes in left wing policies thus will it be.Tail wagging the dog I`m afraid. Thu 22 Jul 2010 00:50:04 GMT+1 kb666 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/07/are_crime_victims_neglected_by.html?page=96#comment267 one of the most comon forms of victim neglect that i have noticed is not from the police force but the justice system, i admit that some victims do not get the support they need from the police but when murderers and rapists are given stupidly leanient sentences and nothing happens to migrant workers or imigrants if they break the laws here, the whole justice system needs to change and new tougher sentences, none of this one sentence for one person tougher for another for the same crime. Wed 21 Jul 2010 23:48:22 GMT+1 MrWonderfulReality http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/07/are_crime_victims_neglected_by.html?page=96#comment266 Senior government advisor, Louise Casey, says crime victims are often sidelined in a criminal system which focuses its attention on the perpetrator.Bit like Robert Green then!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Wed 21 Jul 2010 23:23:11 GMT+1 MrWonderfulReality http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/07/are_crime_victims_neglected_by.html?page=96#comment265 Does the criminal system neglect victims? The neglectful victim system is criminal!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1 Wed 21 Jul 2010 23:08:06 GMT+1 boskamp1 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/07/are_crime_victims_neglected_by.html?page=95#comment264 does cherie blair make a good living fromm defending scumbags and illegals wish i had stayed on at school and gone on to be a lawyer Wed 21 Jul 2010 22:46:12 GMT+1 newlach http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/07/are_crime_victims_neglected_by.html?page=95#comment263 Hard work behind bars for criminals and solitary confinement for those who fail to cooperate with the prison authorities. If a serious criminal has substantial assets, the state should receive a share of them. Wed 21 Jul 2010 22:29:19 GMT+1 Phosgene http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/07/are_crime_victims_neglected_by.html?page=94#comment262 258. At 10:20pm on 21 Jul 2010, NHSmanager wrote:"It is of no interest whatsoever to anybody but themselves (self?)"----------That's very funny. Maybe I should get another user account and argue with myself.I could even get a third one where I tell myselves off sternly.Admit it. You are me. You are, aren't you? Wed 21 Jul 2010 22:09:51 GMT+1 Phosgene http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/07/are_crime_victims_neglected_by.html?page=94#comment261 260. At 10:35pm on 21 Jul 2010, Sat_tire wrote:"I would never have opened Guantameau Bay. I would have shot the lot of them on sight. That way the menace is removed."Phosgene says:Look at the damage hit squads did and do to South American countries."I drew attention to some of these rights are are breached on a daily basis and you simply ignore these."Phosgene says:If you reread our posts, you'll see that I have been trying to find out what you think is acceptable to do to people. You've been rather reticent to share."I believe you forfeit your right to be treated equally the moment you break the law, as David Cameron once said criminals should leave the human rights at the door."Phosgene says:Do you REALLY think Dave Cameron really has no idea that the entitlement to defend oneself has been legal in this country for centuries? It's obvious populism."Using your skewered logic if Osama Bin laden was caught in the UK you would oppose his extradition to the USA because there he would get what he deserved."Phosgene says:"what he deserved" -- and what would that be? Death?The best thing we could do with these people is not to give them the martyrdom they so crave. Such martyrs become figureheads for similar crazies. The smart solution to any terrorist hoping to die for his cause is to sentence them to life. No martyrdom, no "glory", no heaven ever-after. Put them in a room and let them stew. They will discover unimaginable misery and such abject failure on their own terms that it will discourage others."You still have not replied to whether you are prepared to do time if you used excessive force in trying to foil a burglary. Its yes or no and not some barking thing about pulling out teeth and tattoes."Phosgene says:And you expect more courtesy from me in answering you than you are prepared to show me. Do remember that this was to test YOUR point about suspending human rights.Prepared to do time? Highly speculative stuff. Who knows what I would do. I'd probably wait until I could overpower scumbag relatively safely. or not at all.If, however, I do have an unconscious burglar on my floor at any point, should I give you a call? We can both have some fun with the guy with no human rights. Anything trashing the rights listed at 253 is on the cards.You say you want this. What should we do with him? Wed 21 Jul 2010 21:55:57 GMT+1 Sat_tire http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/07/are_crime_victims_neglected_by.html?page=94#comment260 258. At 10:20pm on 21 Jul 2010, NHSmanager wrote:Mods, why have you allowed a monotonous 'discussion'/squabble betweenPhosgene and Sat_tire to go on all day? It is of no interest whatsoever to anybody but themselves (self?) who are trying to score (meaningless)points against each other.================================Maybe its democratic to allow people to say what they think, provided they do not break any law. You could always vote with the little X button on the top right of the screen.I find it interesting that you speak for every member with the exception of two apparently on the BBC Have your say forum.Or is it that like real NHS Managers you think you know best. Thats why the health service is such a mess. Wed 21 Jul 2010 21:39:20 GMT+1 Sat_tire http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/07/are_crime_victims_neglected_by.html?page=93#comment259 Phosgene I have replied and if you cannot work out the reply that is not my problem. But as you appear incapable of working this out I will state the only one I do not subscribe to the in this list is right to not impose the death penalty as there are crimes so heinious that its a fair sentence and many people in this country would not be living in the pain of having lost loved one's if it had been administered the first time they were caught. Roy Whiting is the most obvious choice, but there are others.I think in certain circumstances torture can be acceptable, such as terrorist suspects, although personally I would never have opened Guantameau Bay. I would have shot the lot of them on sight. That way the menace is removed. If you are prepared to kill innocent people you must be prepared to go the same way yourself.I drew attention to some of these rights are are breached on a daily basis and you simply ignore these. I do not believe the current law regards reasonable force is right and therfore subscribe to the notion that a person who is endangered by the act of a criminal; rape, housebreaking, assault etc should have the right to use whatever force is necessary and if results in the criminals death, then so be it. So this will say I do not subscribe to the right to life in your narrow minded view, which is a different matter all together. I believe you forfeit your right to be treated equally the moment you break the law, as David Cameron once said criminals should leave the human rights at the door. As you cannot understand the basic principle you will never understand this.A person of relative intelligence can see both sides of an argument and I will once again state that I see your argument, I understand it; I just don't believe it to be something I can agree with. This does not make you right or me wrong, it means there is a disagreement. Why is there no referendum on capital punishment in this country, because the majority of people want it restored. Using your skewered logic if Osama Bin laden was caught in the UK you would oppose his extradition to the USA because there he would get what he deserved. The 3,000 people killed in New York never got justice, most of them were just trying to earn a living in an honest way. You still have not replied to whether you are prepared to do time if you used excessive force in trying to foil a burglary. Its yes or no and not some barking thing about pulling out teeth and tattoes. Wed 21 Jul 2010 21:35:15 GMT+1 Phosgene http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/07/are_crime_victims_neglected_by.html?page=93#comment258 Hi NHSManager, I think you'll find the battle over the worth of the Human Rights Act goes very much to the heart of the issue here. On the one hand, it sets minimum standards for the state's treatment of everybody.On the other, it's gripe water for people who have some odd, populist ideas about the British Criminal Justice System.Do you prescribe tabloids to make people so counterfactual?And can you arrange a referral for people who want to suspend the right to life and think that torture is an acceptable thing for homeowners to do to criminals? Wed 21 Jul 2010 21:30:25 GMT+1 HarryKeogh http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/07/are_crime_victims_neglected_by.html?page=93#comment257 Mods, why have you allowed a monotonous 'discussion'/squabble between Phosgene and Sat_tire to go on all day? It is of no interest whatsoever to anybody but themselves (self?) who are trying to score (meaningless)points against each other. Wed 21 Jul 2010 21:20:10 GMT+1 Phosgene http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/07/are_crime_victims_neglected_by.html?page=92#comment256 @250.... Phosgene Gash....Phosgene-wannabe, have you not figured out why I choose not to report you for cribbing my user name? Wed 21 Jul 2010 21:16:27 GMT+1 hannibal http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/07/are_crime_victims_neglected_by.html?page=92#comment255 Crime pays; ask the solicitors who rake off millions from the legal aid budget. Some of them call themselves Prisoners Human Rights lawyers. If the same amount of money could be made from victims the solicitors would drop the criminals without blushing. What an honourable profession. The sooner the legal aid 'racket' is reviewed the better. The MP's expenses scandal is nothing compared to the legal aid swindle. Wed 21 Jul 2010 21:10:50 GMT+1 sean56z http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/07/are_crime_victims_neglected_by.html?page=92#comment254 Joran vander Sloot perpetrated the murders of several women to satisfy his necrophile interest. Underworld traffickers deal snuff films often filmed on islands near Central or South America. Police Detectives locate the corpses of women (often prostitutes) who were killed and posed in provocative fashion. Those purchasing illicit videos are stimulated by homicides of women. Joran's Aryan clique prefers featuring Polish, Jewish, and Gypsey women, but they also include Hispanic and African-American women, as well. The movies usually have a revenge theme in the post-World War II era with an explicit purpose of auto-erotic activity. Wed 21 Jul 2010 21:07:08 GMT+1 Silvia http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/07/are_crime_victims_neglected_by.html?page=91#comment253 I think that the problem with this question is that it assumes everybody in British society (other societies? let's not go there) shares the same meaning of 'victims' 'criminals' and 'justice'. Most people who have had a crime committed against them experience feelings of shock, anger, need for the perpetrator to be punished, need for this punishment to fit the crime, retribution, catharsis. If this were fulfilled, most (admittedly not all, but most) people who had had a crime committed against them would be - not ecstatic, not happy, but satisfied. They would no longer feel like victims. The reason there is currently so much concentration on victims and victim support is that increasingly the legal system finds it too expensive to mete out appropriate and equivalent punishment. It's the economy. And finding it too expensive, it (along with our political system) invents all sorts of ideologies to explain why the tried and convicted perpetrator of a crime can't or shouldn't be subjected to punishment appropriate to the seriousness of his/her crime. And why is this? Because the legal system doesn't exist to deliver justice - some people may feel it does, but this is just a lucky accident. The legal system is there to ensure law and order, for our ruling class and for our establishment (who, let's face it, aren't very likely to ever be the victims of crime, they're too well protected). Wed 21 Jul 2010 21:06:34 GMT+1 Phosgene http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/07/are_crime_victims_neglected_by.html?page=91#comment252 238. At 5:56pm on 21 Jul 2010, Sat_tire wrote:"Focus on the argument, leave make believe to Jeffrey Archer and other novelists."----------But I did. I am still trying to pin you down on what you mean when you claim criminals should forfeit their human rights. I thought the vignette might actually elicit a sensible response from you.It is YOU who is being disingenuous by avoiding YET AGAIN giving a sane answer to to what you say you want.So, once again, which rights of the ones below should be forfeited:* the right to life* freedom from torture and degrading treatment* freedom from slavery and forced labour* the right to liberty* the right to a fair trial* the right not to be punished for something that wasn't a crime when you did it* the right to respect for private and family life* freedom of thought, conscience and religion, and freedom to express your beliefs* freedom of expression* freedom of assembly and association* the right to marry and to start a family* the right not to be discriminated against in respect of these rights and freedoms* the right to peaceful enjoyment of your property* the right to an education* the right to participate in free elections* the right not to be subjected to the death penaltySo, Sat_ire, care to answer the question this time? It's now the fifth time you've dodged. Wed 21 Jul 2010 21:03:30 GMT+1 lochraven http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/07/are_crime_victims_neglected_by.html?page=90#comment251 Did you hear about the businessman who business was broken into so many times that he set a trap. Sure enough, he was broken into again and the perpetrator was badly hurt. Guess who got sued? Wed 21 Jul 2010 21:03:11 GMT+1 Robert Geake http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/07/are_crime_victims_neglected_by.html?page=90#comment250 Tattoos? Would you like "SPEEDER" or "LITTERER" tattooed on your forehead for such menial crimes because, after all is said and done, they are crimes!!??The criminal justice system is there to bring CRIMINAL'S to JUSTICE (something in a name?)... NOT deal with so called victims or crime. I have been robbed and burgled, I never EVERY felt like a victim because for me, that implies someone has targeted me personally, it's not like that is it?They are targeting your money, or the stuff you have that they can swap for money."He/She's got victim written all over him/her". Wed 21 Jul 2010 21:00:00 GMT+1 U14370844 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/07/are_crime_victims_neglected_by.html?page=90#comment249 00. At 2:17pm on 21 Jul 2010, Phosgene wrote:"Your human rights are:* the right to life________________________________________________Excellent, no more dying of cancer for anyone.... Wed 21 Jul 2010 20:43:22 GMT+1 Nathan http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/07/are_crime_victims_neglected_by.html?page=89#comment248 It really is unfair to suggest that all victims are ignored. For instance, if you defend yourself and/or your property and, in doing so, the criminial gets hurt, then you can bet your boots that you will not be ignored by the Law. You will find that you are being charged with some sort of offence - a charge brought about by the criminal him/herself.That's just about how fair UK Law is! Wed 21 Jul 2010 20:11:38 GMT+1 Stu http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/07/are_crime_victims_neglected_by.html?page=89#comment247 As a serving police officer I would say victims and society (law abiding) has been neglected for years.I go to work and every day there are people on the streets who have been bailed by the courts for serious offences. People who serve a couple of years for killing/maiming/injuring people. Its wrong.Breach your bail conditions and go inside. No. Magistrates remove the conditions because its too difficult for the criminal concerned. They rack up offences on bail and then they get a community sentence. Criminals view this as a let off.The criminal justice system needs a complete revamp where victims are put first and the public protected from the criminals with meaningful sentences. Some of us work on the front line and want to put these people away but it is like trying to push water uphill with all the liberal do gooders wanting to let them out to commit more crime.It would be good if the government listened to the people who elect them. Just for once. Wed 21 Jul 2010 19:53:06 GMT+1 Mr Goodnews http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/07/are_crime_victims_neglected_by.html?page=89#comment246 #2 and #246SPOT ON!Lets hope the politicians have the guts to change things.Criminal justice system? sorry it should be victims justice system. Wed 21 Jul 2010 19:47:19 GMT+1 JohnnyBravo http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/07/are_crime_victims_neglected_by.html?page=88#comment245 Take it from me, the Police do all that they can for Victims, and do their absoloute best to put away the criminals that turn people into victims.However, once they get to court, the judges hands are so tied by the last Govenments sentencing guidlines, and HRH Tony Blairs Human Rights Act (Didn't Cherie do well out of that ?) that the criminals rights, are put well ahead of the victims.Happens everyday.I would class myself as a Liberal and voted so but, the Human Rights Act must be repealed.Victims first, not criminals !Also, criminals should not be allowed to use their membership of any racial, religeous or cultural group as a method of defence. These factors should not even be brought up or mentioned in court !!! Wed 21 Jul 2010 19:36:44 GMT+1 panchopablo http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/07/are_crime_victims_neglected_by.html?page=88#comment244 233. At 5:29pm on 21 Jul 2010, Phosgene wrote:228. At 5:06pm on 21 Jul 2010, Sat_tire wrote:"And to cut off the argument that will follow that you would not confront them, they could give you no option."----------Definitely: a homeowner's nightmare."However, you have no right to kill or maim them, and you fall into the tabloid-style trap of thinking this issue primarily concerns human rights. It does not. The term "reasonable force" has been an issue for many years."As Cameron said,the intruder left there human rights at the doorstep.That tolerant society the leftwing liberal parasites keep badgering on about is only in place because they shackled the populous.Enough is enough,rid this country of the likes Liberty and all dogooders and let commonsense prevail in this land again. Wed 21 Jul 2010 19:01:41 GMT+1 peter cona http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/07/are_crime_victims_neglected_by.html?page=88#comment243 just dont ever be a white hetrosexual christian criminal, you will be used as a example, ever one who does not meet the above criteria, has either a sexual, racial, or religious get out clause. sod being a white english, straight person breaking the law, being homeless in the need for housing, or generally trying to get a job. as with todays socirty you are treated as a lepper. Wed 21 Jul 2010 18:15:46 GMT+1 Sat_tire http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/07/are_crime_victims_neglected_by.html?page=87#comment242 I would like to see the end of a tariff for robbery and a proper form of restorative justice.It goes like this.You are burgled and the thief steals £20,000 worth of your insured possessions. His / her sentence is as follows:Sentenced to prison until he has paid the following by working in a prison chain gang at the minimum wage.* £20,000 in full to the insurance company after being deducted tax and national insurance* A weekly contribution towards board and lodging of say £100* A contribution to the running of prisons of £1,000 per year* Re-imbursement of the injured parties costsThen the punishment for burglary will fit the crime. It can be used for driving without insurance and having an accident and a few other transgressions.That will cut the rate of offending because 90% are repeat offenders and will not be re-offending while working to pay off their criminal activity. And best of all it contributes to the exchequor. Wed 21 Jul 2010 18:03:37 GMT+1 U14548453 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/07/are_crime_victims_neglected_by.html?page=87#comment241 Are crime victims neglected by the penal system? Of course, all you hear is lefties whinging about how the criminals have had such a tough life.Keep comitting crimes, the key should be thrown away! Wed 21 Jul 2010 18:02:54 GMT+1 lochraven http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/07/are_crime_victims_neglected_by.html?page=86#comment240 Victims can never be compensated. Being a victim makes you a different person - always. Losing trust in your fellow man can last a long time. And depending where the crime took place, on the street, in your home, or at the workplace can lead to insecurity, It's not unusual to shy away from places where a person has been victimized, it can change you whole pattern of lifestyle. Many victims need therapy especially for physical abuse.Yes, victims are neglected. Wed 21 Jul 2010 17:28:17 GMT+1 WilliamCody http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/07/are_crime_victims_neglected_by.html?page=86#comment239 The criminal justice system in this country is not far short of a joke. Having served on a jury myself, most cases where the offender is obviously guilty, the case is thrown out because of the lack of police evidence, usually because they haven't done their job properly. The offender is also represented (at the taxpayers expense) by some intimidating lawyer who thinks its clever to win a case knowing really his or her client ( who by now is almost laughing at the court, and is inviting their mates along to hear the verdict) really is guilty.Its a complete sham, and I feel totally embarrassed to have been forced to be part of it Wed 21 Jul 2010 17:27:27 GMT+1 Sat_tire http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/07/are_crime_victims_neglected_by.html?page=86#comment238 238. At 5:56pm on 21 Jul 2010, you wrote:* the homeowner invites some mates over to tattoo the work "scum" onto the criminal's forehead.==============================================This should be part of the punishment handed down by the court, you have your crime tattoed onto your forehead, so Ian Huntely would be walking around with murderer tattoed on his. Wed 21 Jul 2010 17:17:00 GMT+1 Sat_tire http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/07/are_crime_victims_neglected_by.html?page=85#comment237 234. At 5:36pm on 21 Jul 2010, Phosgene wrote:"This is why I'd replace that burden with the much simpler idea of placing all the responsibility of anything that transpires from their commissioning of an offence on the shoulders of the criminal, as they alone decided to do what they were doing, and they alone should face the consequences of their actions."-----So, Len Day and Sat_tire, who is responsible when a housebreaking criminal receives the following:* the criminal gets apprehended by the homeowner* the homeowner then breaks the criminal arms* the homeowner rips out the criminal's front teeth with pliers* the homeowner invites some mates over to tattoo the work "scum" onto the criminal's forehead.How liable is the homeowner?I ask so we can test your planned legal principle.+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++As you have not answered whether you would be prepared to go to prison this is again avoiding the argument because it makes yours fall over. saying its every homeowners nightmare is not an answer, its a copout.What happens if the criminal is caught, it turns out he is an heridetary peer and a large landowner in the North who burgles people for kicks. Not only that he looks just like the bloke who has been burgled. So you go up to his house and live in it like your own, inviting your mates up for drunken weekends and grouse shooting, take his seat in the house of Lords and bring down a piece of government legislation to legalise bigamy and while his Lordship has to live in your Two up Two down in Exeter and do your job as a bin man for the council because he cannot prove who he is because you have stolen his identity and his wife won't say anything because you better in bed than he ever was.Plausible?About as plausible as the pliars and tattoo scenario.Focus on the argument, leave make believe to Jeffrey Archer and other novelists. Wed 21 Jul 2010 16:56:49 GMT+1 Len Day http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/07/are_crime_victims_neglected_by.html?page=85#comment236 234. PhosgeneI take your point, but what I was trying to point out was just how heavily the weight and burden of keeping to minimum force in order to protect oneself/family/property is in this country, and that in the heat of the moment such a tight legal definition shouldn't get in the way. In no way would I condone what you've suggested could happen, because that in itself involves the commissioning of another crime, whereas defence is defence, an on the spur of the moment reaction to a given threat. We should all be able to offer defence without fear of threat of legal action against us. Wed 21 Jul 2010 16:55:31 GMT+1 stracepipe http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/07/are_crime_victims_neglected_by.html?page=85#comment235 54. At 1:54pm on 20 Jul 2010, Orangeandmango wrote:And until the petty daily mail readers get down from their high horses and actually do something about abolishing poverty then there will always be criminals who are victims of society as much as a victim of their own choices.------------------------Encouraging people to abdicate responsibility, for their actions, (It's not my fault I mugged that elderly lady, officer:I'm poor) is one of the main reasons why we have so many social problems. I was unemployed for 3 years, in the last recession, but I did not steal. Same as I managed to eat healthily and exercise. As a result I have no criminal record and I am not obese! In real terms, our society has never been wealthier. The poorest person now, has a higher standard of living and more access to education & healthcare, better housing and a better diet, than probably 70% of the population 60 years ago. Most people didn't have an inside loo, yet the crime rate was lower then. It's like that ridiculous argument that the young turn to crime because they've 'nothing to do'. Youngsters have more laid on to entertain them, than at any point in history.Do you read the Guardian by any chance? After all, if the social problems disappeared, so would the Guardian's vacancies page. Wed 21 Jul 2010 16:49:49 GMT+1 john33 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/07/are_crime_victims_neglected_by.html?page=84#comment234 Yes, of course she's right.Largely due to that interfering, unrealistic and unnecessary institution, the European Court of Human Rights, the criminal justice system is so overburdened with having to make sure that no technicalities are left open for the defence to exploit that the victims of crime and their families are completely overlooked. It's not so much the European Court of Human Rights as the Court of Rights for Criminals since it's usually their high-priced lawyers, that the rest of us can't afford, who seek every legal loophole to ensure that their "clients'" remain free.One of the major problems is that the system is based entirely on law with no place for morality.Of course everyone should be entitled to a fair trial, but there's fair and fair! Wed 21 Jul 2010 16:38:59 GMT+1 Phosgene http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/07/are_crime_victims_neglected_by.html?page=84#comment233 "This is why I'd replace that burden with the much simpler idea of placing all the responsibility of anything that transpires from their commissioning of an offence on the shoulders of the criminal, as they alone decided to do what they were doing, and they alone should face the consequences of their actions."-----So, Len Day and Sat_tire, who is responsible when a housebreaking criminal receives the following:* the criminal gets apprehended by the homeowner* the homeowner then breaks the criminal arms* the homeowner rips out the criminal's front teeth with pliers* the homeowner invites some mates over to tattoo the work "scum" onto the criminal's forehead.How liable is the homeowner?I ask so we can test your planned legal principle. Wed 21 Jul 2010 16:36:52 GMT+1 Phosgene http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/07/are_crime_victims_neglected_by.html?page=84#comment232 228. At 5:06pm on 21 Jul 2010, Sat_tire wrote:"And to cut off the argument that will follow that you would not confront them, they could give you no option."----------Definitely: a homeowner's nightmare.However, you have no right to kill or maim them, and you fall into the tabloid-style trap of thinking this issue primarily concerns human rights. It does not. The term "reasonable force" has been an issue for many years. Wed 21 Jul 2010 16:29:22 GMT+1 Phosgene http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/07/are_crime_victims_neglected_by.html?page=83#comment231 226. At 4:50pm on 21 Jul 2010, Sat_tire wrote:"There is a right to be a criminal because your rights are protected even when you are breaking the law."----------No. That's legal nonsense under law in this country before the Human Rights Act and after it.As for "Instead of trying to pick holes answer the basic question of how you are going to chrage him for murder if his house was never broken into. ANSWER THAT. YOU CAN'T BECAUSE YOUR WHOLE ARGUMENT FALLS APART AT THAT POINT."You're asking -- I'LL SAY THIS A THIRD TIME -- how someone who did not murder would be charged with murder. I'll repeat that this is illogical. A non-murderer would NOT get charged with murder.Time no.4: A non-murderer would NOT get charged with murder.Time no.5: A non-murderer would NOT get charged with murder.Time no.6: A non-murderer would NOT get charged with murder.Clear now?Rather than my reasoning falling to bits, yours is on the floor in peices."The point that you will not concede is that it would not have happened if the criminals that broke in were where they belonged based on their history, in prison."Ah, finally, you're starting to make your meaning clearer. The flaw in your point here is that imprisonment for these offences cannot be indefinite. The state CANNOT protect everone all of the time. I recall saying this to you before: that is why we have the Criminal Justice System and the Criminal Justice System can never guarantee people released will not reoffend. That much is common sense.That's elementary, Mr Dear Watson, rather like your grasp of the human rights legislation. Wed 21 Jul 2010 16:22:50 GMT+1 Len Day http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/07/are_crime_victims_neglected_by.html?page=83#comment230 'ONCE AGAIN THERE IS NO RIGHT TO BE A CRIMINAL'That's true, but in so many cases we've seen people who have defended themselves, their property and their friends end up being prosecuted & thrown into prison. Perhaps if the law stated that if a burglary/robbery/mugging etc were taking place, then anything that happened during the course of that offence was the sole responsibility of the perpetrator. So, for example, should the perpetrator just commited the initial robbery/burglary, then they should be prosecuted for that. If they subsequently injure or kill anyone during the course of the offence, then of course that should also be taken into account, as is currently the case, but if the victim defends themselves, their property and/or friends/family, then they should not be subject to any criminal proceedings, on the basis that they couldn't have committed any offence if the preceding offence by the burglar had not been committed.You may argue that people currently have the right to defend themselves etc, which is true, but as I see it, the law as it stands places a very heavy burden on the victim (of burglary) to prove they they used minimum force in order to defend themselves. It's easy in hindsight to say that someone used excessive force in self-defence, when very often it's difficult to appreciate the tensions of the moment, and the very real anxiety that can rapidly build up in moments of stress which, let's face it, are not the fault of the victim. This is why I'd replace that burden with the much simpler idea of placing all the responsibility of anything that transpires from their commissioning of an offence on the shoulders of the criminal, as they alone decided to do what they were doing, and they alone should face the consequences of their actions. Wed 21 Jul 2010 16:12:40 GMT+1 Sat_tire http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/07/are_crime_victims_neglected_by.html?page=82#comment229 It obviously does not make it lawful, but it condones it because it takes away the basic right to defend what is yours and replaces it with an arbitary test. Wed 21 Jul 2010 16:08:11 GMT+1 pandatank http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/07/are_crime_victims_neglected_by.html?page=82#comment228 #42. Reclaim_the_country wrote:"I was a victim of criminal damage, £750 worth of new tyres slashed. Only a token investigation was mounted. Had this been done to a police vehicle I have no doubt whatsoever that a full investigation would have been mounted and the perpetrator(s) found and punished."I can do your "full investigation" now if you like. Was the perpetrator caught in the act? Was there CCTV footage of sufficient resolution to make a positive ID? Were there any witnesses willing to testify? Cost of logging call and opening case file - £300Fingerprinting - £1500etc. etc.Your full investigation will probably cost the taxpayer around £10,000. For 4 new tyres worth £750? Aren't you insured? Worried about your excess? Just how much "going through the motions" would satisfy your victims rights? Wed 21 Jul 2010 16:07:10 GMT+1 Sat_tire http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/07/are_crime_victims_neglected_by.html?page=82#comment227 224. At 4:36pm on 21 Jul 2010, Phosgene wrote:220. At 4:08pm on 21 Jul 2010, Sat_tire wrote:"You cannot answer the question of how you are going to charge Tony Martin for murder without his being burgled. That may be simplistic to you."----------But as I said at 134, yesterday,"You want me to explain why someone would have been charged with murder without having killed someone.That doesn't make much sense, you know.You'll find that is yet another hole in what you say you want."To summarise:YOU HAVE ASKED ME A SECOND TIME TO EXPLAIN WHY SOMEONE WOULD HAVE BEEN CHARGED WITH MURDER WITHOUT HAVING KILLED SOMEONE.You do see that your request lacks logic and sense?===================================================It only lacks logic and sense insofar as he had to have his human right under article 8 violated to happen. No violation, no crime is committed as a result.The point that you will not concede is that it would not have happened if the criminals that broke in were where they belonged based on their history, in prison.This beggers the question, what would you do if someone broke into your property in the dead of the night and you had to defend yourself. You would be happy to go to prison on the basis in protecting your property you used more force than necessary according to some arbitary test.And to cut off the argument that will follow that you would not confront them, they could give you no option. Wed 21 Jul 2010 16:06:24 GMT+1 Phosgene http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/07/are_crime_victims_neglected_by.html?page=81#comment226 So, Sat_tire, let's cut through the flim-flam.Why do you think the Human Rights Act makes criminality lawful?I ask because it is pretty clear that this is not the case, so I am asking where your *perception* of this is from. Wed 21 Jul 2010 15:52:44 GMT+1 Sat_tire http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/07/are_crime_victims_neglected_by.html?page=81#comment225 There is a right to be a criminal because your rights are protected even when you are breaking the law. The Tony Martin case proves this because he was not allowed to violate the human rights of the criminal in protecting his property. Instead of trying to pick holes answer the basic question of how you are going to chrage him for murder if his house was never broken into. ANSWER THAT. YOU CAN'T BECAUSE YOUR WHOLE ARGUMENT FALLS APART AT THAT POINT.I see you have given up on the stupidity of saying that this means you can commit a rape etc if someone crashes into your car under this logic. IS THAT ANOTHER LOST ARGUMENT?The only game I play is mini cricket or rugby with my children. Wed 21 Jul 2010 15:50:21 GMT+1 AlexisWolf http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/07/are_crime_victims_neglected_by.html?page=81#comment224 2. At 10:59am on 20 Jul 2010, JohnH wrote:IMHO 1st class comment.I would like to add that the victim will be less likely to be forgotten if the crime involved high value property or money. Wed 21 Jul 2010 15:41:53 GMT+1 Phosgene http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/07/are_crime_victims_neglected_by.html?page=80#comment223 220. At 4:08pm on 21 Jul 2010, Sat_tire wrote:"You cannot answer the question of how you are going to charge Tony Martin for murder without his being burgled. That may be simplistic to you."----------But as I said at 134, yesterday, "You want me to explain why someone would have been charged with murder without having killed someone.That doesn't make much sense, you know.You'll find that is yet another hole in what you say you want."To summarise:YOU HAVE ASKED ME A SECOND TIME TO EXPLAIN WHY SOMEONE WOULD HAVE BEEN CHARGED WITH MURDER WITHOUT HAVING KILLED SOMEONE.You do see that your request lacks logic and sense? Wed 21 Jul 2010 15:36:16 GMT+1 Phosgene http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/07/are_crime_victims_neglected_by.html?page=80#comment222 @220. Sat_ire"As I have said before when you lose the argument you play the person, saying that my understanding is Noddy level just because I have the temerity to ask you a question that you cannot answer, therfore the question must be wrong."----------Really, you're doing my job for me."Can you point out the one that says you have the right to commit acts that are criminal offences and in so doing frighten and abuse one of the rights that are enshrined in the act and then not have to be judged by what you have done. Because that is the philosophy that you are expousing."ONCE AGAIN THERE IS NO RIGHT TO BE A CRIMINAL.Can you address the points or are you more interested in a bit of face-saving insinuation? Anyone capable of reading for meaning sees your shoddy little game here. Wed 21 Jul 2010 15:29:08 GMT+1 Sat_tire http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/07/are_crime_victims_neglected_by.html?page=80#comment221 215. At 3:54pm on 21 Jul 2010, Phosgene wrote:Sat_tire wrote:"bleeding heat liberals""I was educated in a country where you were taught to think for yourself."-----Not convincing evidence of original thought, Sat_ire.+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++Its more original than believeing everything you read in a newspaper and then try and tell people to change their newspaper because they disagree with your thoughts when you are making the presumption of where they have formulated their beliefs and thoughts. Wed 21 Jul 2010 15:12:05 GMT+1 nya http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/07/are_crime_victims_neglected_by.html?page=79#comment220 Yes. Wed 21 Jul 2010 15:09:43 GMT+1 Sat_tire http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/07/are_crime_victims_neglected_by.html?page=79#comment219 213. At 3:32pm on 21 Jul 2010, Phosgene wrote:Aw, Sat_ire. I'm ignorant and *you're a genius*, as you prove by asking"Can you point out the one that says you have the right to commit acts that are criminal offences and in so doing frighten and abuse one of the rights that are enshrined in the act and then not have to be judged by what you have done. Because that is the philosophy that you are expousing."You're so clever that I hardly need remind you that criminality is not a human right.Once again, your understanding is woefully inadequate. Noddy-level, in fact. I dread to think what your schoolmates were like in "a country where you were taught to think for yourself", based on your performance here.========================================I would like you to point out where I have called you ignorant and where I have said I am a genius. If I was a genius I would be trying to find a cure for HIV or something like that. I am just a well educated person who works hard. Genius I am not.As I have said before when you lose the argument you play the person, saying that my understanding is Noddy level just because I have the temerity to ask you a question that you cannot answer, therfore the question must be wrong. Now sudenly millions of people brought up in an education system are basically oafs in your opinion because they will not conform to your way of thinking. Look where that got the world in the 1930's. Thats how Hitler started, if you didn't agree with him you disappeared.The bottom line is you are yet to even make the argument.As to the point you are the one missing it that it takes criminality to protect a human right. That in effect is making the right to be a criminal a basic human right. You cannot answer the question of how you are going to charge Tony Martin for murder without his being burgled. That may be simplistic to you. But you are missing the point that he was violated first and he paid a bigger price than the criminal that survived. Who as we all know has gone on to re-offend. Wed 21 Jul 2010 15:08:31 GMT+1 JohnH http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/07/are_crime_victims_neglected_by.html?page=78#comment218 This post has been Removed Wed 21 Jul 2010 15:05:59 GMT+1 ruffled_feathers http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/07/are_crime_victims_neglected_by.html?page=78#comment217 '173. At 09:00am on 21 Jul 2010, Brian Berlin wrote:ruffled_feathers wrote: "......Are you VERY cross....?"Yes, and so should you be :-)'I actually found it somewhat difficult to understand your post. If you had been a little less annoyed I might have had less difficulty in understanding what you actually meant.I don't get very cross with the media. Without them we might never have known about the expenses scandal with the MPs. The Mail and others on occasion have taken on worthwhile causes.There are bigger issues to get cross about, but if you dont' actually do something with the getting cross bit, then it doesn't seem to get anywhere. Wed 21 Jul 2010 15:02:39 GMT+1 Sat_tire http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/07/are_crime_victims_neglected_by.html?page=78#comment216 Phosgene you clearly struggle with the concept of difference of opinion.The majority of these so called Human Rights are fair and good, the right to give somone a human right when they have violated another persons human right is not. Thats my opinion and I am entitled to it. I don't begrudge you having your opinion, you just cannot prove your argument because Tony Martin is still sitting in his house, he has not been burgled yet and for the sake of this is not going to be. Explain how you are going to charge him with murder under these circumstances.You say you have the right of assembly and association. That is not true as you cannot assembly within one kilometre of parliament without a police permit. I disagree with this and the right to protest is a just right, provided it is peaceful and does incite hatred of others.Freedom from torture, there are widespread reports the British government condoned torture at Guantanemeau Bay.The right to respect family and private life. Why are councils using terrorism powers to break this human right.So we have an act that does not work because other laws are passed that allow the act to be broken. Wed 21 Jul 2010 14:58:39 GMT+1 ruffled_feathers http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/07/are_crime_victims_neglected_by.html?page=77#comment215 "157. At 11:46pm on 20 Jul 2010, scunnion wrote:ah, I see ruffled_feathers now...that post is an example of what I think the prevailing attitude in the UK is -- people that want punishment of criminals are anti human rights and semi-fascist. 'disgusting eye-for-eye rubbish', etc...Racist as well, ruffled_feather?And I suspect that out of fear of being called such things, many practical British citizens keep their mouths shut. More British spinelessness.The first people in the US to insist that the judicial system take into consideration the victims were called the same things."Do you know - I haven't got a clue as to what you're talking about?I think I closed the quote I was responding to in the wrong place.Much as I found it difficult to understand the post I responded to because of the amount of vitriol drowning it. Doesn't make for a clear discussion. Wed 21 Jul 2010 14:54:50 GMT+1 Phosgene http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/07/are_crime_victims_neglected_by.html?page=77#comment214 Sat_tire wrote:"bleeding heat liberals""I was educated in a country where you were taught to think for yourself."-----Not convincing evidence of original thought, Sat_ire. Wed 21 Jul 2010 14:54:37 GMT+1 Sue Doughcoup http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/07/are_crime_victims_neglected_by.html?page=77#comment213 No government will listen to this. Whilst wanting to give this new government a chance in sorting out the mess we are in I firmly believe that the legal system will never be fair. After all what are the professions of a fair number of parliamentarians - legal, what else. Jobs for the boys in my opinion and it will never change whilst the status quo continues. Wed 21 Jul 2010 14:47:23 GMT+1 Phosgene http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/07/are_crime_victims_neglected_by.html?page=76#comment212 Aw, Sat_ire. I'm ignorant and *you're a genius*, as you prove by asking"Can you point out the one that says you have the right to commit acts that are criminal offences and in so doing frighten and abuse one of the rights that are enshrined in the act and then not have to be judged by what you have done. Because that is the philosophy that you are expousing."You're so clever that I hardly need remind you that criminality is not a human right.Once again, your understanding is woefully inadequate. Noddy-level, in fact. I dread to think what your schoolmates were like in "a country where you were taught to think for yourself", based on your performance here. Wed 21 Jul 2010 14:32:28 GMT+1 Sat_tire http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/07/are_crime_victims_neglected_by.html?page=76#comment211 We all accept that Tony Martin was tried under a different act and not the Human rights act. The Human rights act gave the criminal the rights that Tony martin violated.If you want to take it all the way back to the beginning, Florida law says that if you are attacked in your home you may use whatever force is necessary to deter the criminal, including his or her death. You will not be charged, because you are the victim. Where does that come from? English Law from when the USA was an effective colony.Now you have the absurd situation that you can commit a crime in the knowledge that if that person protects his property you will get the pay out and he will go to prison, that is because of the human rights act. And then you have the test of reasonable force. While you are being attacked and all that is going through your mind at that you must have the foresight to be thinking, "Oh I hope this is not disproportianate force I am using." All while someone is battering you with a baseball bat.As the argument was made by me and the grandstander, Phosegene carried out attacks and runs away mean I don't believe I have to make another argument.None of the bleeding heat liberals have been able to charge Tony Martin with murder that night until after his own human rights were violated. When you can charge him with murder, without the burglary on that night then I will have something to answer. Until then you are defending the indefensible. How many previous convictions did those two have that broke in? And the touchy feely brigade can argue that the rights of victime are not neglected. Wed 21 Jul 2010 14:20:38 GMT+1 Phosgene http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/07/are_crime_victims_neglected_by.html?page=76#comment210 @208, Sat_tire, you're sore because yesterday I kept pointing out to you the issues with what you say you want.Specifically, which human rights of these "* the right to life* freedom from torture and degrading treatment* freedom from slavery and forced labour* the right to liberty* the right to a fair trial* the right not to be punished for something that wasn't a crime when you did it* the right to respect for private and family life* freedom of thought, conscience and religion, and freedom to express your beliefs* freedom of expression* freedom of assembly and association* the right to marry and to start a family* the right not to be discriminated against in respect of these rights and freedoms* the right to peaceful enjoyment of your property* the right to an education* the right to participate in free elections* the right not to be subjected to the death penalty"are so objectionable to you?If thse sound rather like British fair play, that is because the rights were largely drafted by British lawyers. Wed 21 Jul 2010 14:11:37 GMT+1 Sat_tire http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/07/are_crime_victims_neglected_by.html?page=75#comment209 200. At 2:17pm on 21 Jul 2010, Phosgene wrote:If you like pontificating in ignorance, never look athttp://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1998/ukpga_19980042_en_1The simpler summary athttp://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Governmentcitizensandrights/Yourrightsandresponsibilities/DG_4002951is something for you to be ignorant about too. here is an excerpt:"Your human rights are:* the right to life* freedom from torture and degrading treatment* freedom from slavery and forced labour* the right to liberty* the right to a fair trial* the right not to be punished for something that wasn't a crime when you did it* the right to respect for private and family life* freedom of thought, conscience and religion, and freedom to express your beliefs* freedom of expression* freedom of assembly and association* the right to marry and to start a family* the right not to be discriminated against in respect of these rights and freedoms* the right to peaceful enjoyment of your property* the right to an education* the right to participate in free elections* the right not to be subjected to the death penalty"Very bad, eh?If you notice that your newspaper says something different, you might want to trade up to a newspaper that reports facts.===================================================Quoting government propoganda that is as impartial as John Howard was in wanting the best team to win the 2003 Rugby World Cup is pointless. If you want to engage in a meaningful and full deabte on an issue you must have evidence from both sides of the argument. If I am asked to write a piece on the virtues on no death penalty I will struggle because I believe in the concept.No-one is saying (not even the press you deride) that many of these are not right and just, many of them I admire and believe in, there are some I do not. That is my right under freedom of thought.Can you point out the one that says you have the right to commit acts that are criminal offences and in so doing frighten and abuse one of the rights that are enshrined in the act and then not have to be judged by what you have done. Because that is the philosophy that you are expousing.It is also ignorant to tell someone that just because they read a newspaper that mirrors their beliefs that they must change their newspaper. Because that is wanting to deny them their freedom of thought, or is freedom of thought as long is its what the powers that be want you to believe? What is best of all is that I do not read these newspapers at all. So you are sterotyping me by the media you read because if I have my belief it has been formed by a newspaper. I was not educated in this country, I was educated in a country where you were taught to think for yourself. Wed 21 Jul 2010 14:08:36 GMT+1 Nic121 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/07/are_crime_victims_neglected_by.html?page=75#comment208 138. At 8:56pm on 20 Jul 2010, Sat_tire wrote:134. At 8:38pm on 20 Jul 2010, Phosgene wrote:131. At 8:06pm on 20 Jul 2010, Sat_tire wrote:"You explain why Tony Martin would have been charged with murder without the robbery having taken place and then you can start picking holes in the arguments."----------You want me to explain why someone would have been charged with murder without having killed someone.That doesn't make much sense, you know.You'll find that is yet another hole in what you say you want.==============================================================Yes, because that is the point. The so called murder took place because Mr Martin's Human right under article 8 was violated.Right to respect for private and family life1 Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence. For the criminal to have a human right he had violate one. Therfore your entire argument is flawed because you cannot get past this. A crime was committed for a subsequent crime to take place.This proved the HRC is a load of contradictory nonsense.=======================================================================Phosgene, let me try and help you out because you are making a valid point which Sat_ire and a couple of other posters aren't getting...Tony Martin was convicted by laws that have existed for years under the English legal system. As Phosgene has already stated, Tony Martin was convicted by a Jury and NOT the Human Rights Act. When a person defends themselves the law MUST take into consideration 'reasonable force', and in Tony Martin's case he was seen to have used unreasonably extreme force against the burglars...he shot one of them in the back whilst they were running away for goodness sake! That is the law that we have been living under for decades now and the HRA has not changed that. In other words Tony Martin and other such cases is a poor choice of example to use in an argument about the HRA.Sat_itre and like-minded others - I know you are going to try and rebuke my comment calling me some sort of bleeding-heart liberal...alas it's the HYS way of shouting someone down, but it would be refreshing if you made an attempt to come up with some sort of balanced well thought-out argument of your own? Wed 21 Jul 2010 14:00:03 GMT+1 Sat_tire http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/07/are_crime_victims_neglected_by.html?page=75#comment207 171. At 08:34am on 21 Jul 2010, Sue Denim wrote:Is there some way I can vote for sat_tire as minister of justice? They speak plenty of sense despite Phosgene's illogical and poorly thought out counter arguments straight from "The Guardian".185. At 11:16am on 21 Jul 2010, Stevem65 wrote:"171. At 08:34am on 21 Jul 2010, Sue Denim wrote:Is there some way I can vote for sat_tire as minister of justice? They speak plenty of sense despite Phosgene's illogical and poorly thought out counter arguments straight from "The Guardian"."I'm sorry he's taking up that role in Saudi Arabia.==================================================Thank you Sue Denim, its nice to see that at least one other person in this country hasn't been hood winked by the thought police who have decreed that anyone who does not have this touchy feely, poor little crimbo who only became a crim because daddy used to beat him up in a drunken stupor are under the influence of the Murdoch press, which I abborr beacause it has reduced journalism to tabloid standards in what used to be quality newspapers. It's amazing that the responses and assertion that I am influenced by what I read in a newspaper is made using the same comments expoused in a newspaper. I think the apt comment is houses made of glass and stones.It is also interesting how when people have lost the argument they have to resort to playing the person, with comments such as explaining Pizza to somone who doesn't know cheese. I'm quite partial to a calzone, which you need to understand about Pizza's, as it is not flat and does not have cheese in it, unless you specifically request it.Just because I can see someone's argument and don't subscribe to that theory does not mean that I am wrong, it means that there is a difference of opinion. Differences of opinion are what make the world an interesting place and thus far Phosgene has not been able to charge Tony Martin with any crime until after his human rights were violated. When he is able to charge Tony Martin with Murder before his Human rights were violated on that night then he can begin to expand on his theory, until then it is just an apologist position, that confirms victims are neglected from the moment they are a victim right the way through the judicial process.I also think that Stevem65, you will find that I would more likely be the Minister of Justice in China by supporting widespread capital punishment. You get executed there for minor fraud. Does it stop it, it stops that particular individual commiting another fraud and thats good enough for me. Wed 21 Jul 2010 13:57:18 GMT+1 Paul J Weighell http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/07/are_crime_victims_neglected_by.html?page=74#comment206 @clamdip lobster claws: "Crime and mayhem were allowed to flourish so that people would move closer to state and government control."and mental health services were allowed to flourish so that irrational paranoids with conspiracy fears about ‘the state’ and ‘government control’ might find treatment… Wed 21 Jul 2010 13:52:24 GMT+1 Paul J Weighell http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/07/are_crime_victims_neglected_by.html?page=74#comment205 "Crime victims neglected by the penal system."So stop reducing sentences based on the criminals' mitigating circumstances and start increasing sentences based on the victims’ circumstances.Should restore the balance and may even help dissuade potential criminals.Hardly rocket science or even very controversial I would have thought. Wed 21 Jul 2010 13:37:30 GMT+1 3rensho http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/07/are_crime_victims_neglected_by.html?page=73#comment204 They are indeed. Criminals have far more rights than their victims. Wed 21 Jul 2010 13:35:47 GMT+1 Roger http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/07/are_crime_victims_neglected_by.html?page=73#comment203 Far too much emphasis is placed on the human rights of the criminal - instead of punishing them and putting an effective deterrent in place.The victims suffer far more than they need.In my opinion, if anyone enters private premises with the intent to commit a crime, they should leave all human rights at the front gate and accept "WHATEVER" happens. Wed 21 Jul 2010 13:33:32 GMT+1 RON HUTCH http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/07/are_crime_victims_neglected_by.html?page=73#comment202 It would help if the justice system was for the good of the public.Instead of being a money making machine for lawyers.For judges to practice their airy fairy liberal ideas.Like criminals being the victims protected by their human rights.Whilst on the other side of the coin the victim has no rights.As the law is made up and administered from a certain strata of the population it will always stay the same. Wed 21 Jul 2010 13:33:02 GMT+1 MrWonderfulReality http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/07/are_crime_victims_neglected_by.html?page=72#comment201 Do you think the penal system could be improved? Yes.I think we need more prisons, especially because historical evidence and facts point to a big increase of crime/criminal activity when growing economic hardship takes effect.But where to put them.No-one wants then in their backyard or neighbourhood.Not on greenbelt sites.How about at the bottom of Wast Water lake in Cumbria, out of site and out of mind, and dont bother with glass windows, just iron bars will do. Wed 21 Jul 2010 13:26:48 GMT+1 Hilda Williams http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/07/are_crime_victims_neglected_by.html?page=72#comment200 publicity on the recent shootings by Moat encourages gun culture as well as giving the wrong signal to young people with ideas of wanting to own a gun.To survive a gun shot wound and live to tell the tale should not give the message that shot guns are less dangerous because some one has recovered from a shot gun attack.While it maybe necessary for policemen to be armed ,the general pulic would have less need to be owners of shot guns and less of a need to go hunting for someone to shoot at, just because owning a gun will give them a better reason to harm a person. The memories of victims of crimes cannot be wipped off the slate,and that slate is getting bigger every day,but government intevention in gun crime is not considered a priority for reform .Perhaps an improvement should be encouraged by shot gun manufacturers to pay compensations to victims of gunshot wounds and their families when some one is killed. Wed 21 Jul 2010 13:24:55 GMT+1 Phosgene http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/07/are_crime_victims_neglected_by.html?page=72#comment199 If you like pontificating in ignorance, never look at http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1998/ukpga_19980042_en_1The simpler summary athttp://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Governmentcitizensandrights/Yourrightsandresponsibilities/DG_4002951is something for you to be ignorant about too. here is an excerpt:"Your human rights are: * the right to life * freedom from torture and degrading treatment * freedom from slavery and forced labour * the right to liberty * the right to a fair trial * the right not to be punished for something that wasn't a crime when you did it * the right to respect for private and family life * freedom of thought, conscience and religion, and freedom to express your beliefs * freedom of expression * freedom of assembly and association * the right to marry and to start a family * the right not to be discriminated against in respect of these rights and freedoms * the right to peaceful enjoyment of your property * the right to an education * the right to participate in free elections * the right not to be subjected to the death penalty"Very bad, eh?If you notice that your newspaper says something different, you might want to trade up to a newspaper that reports facts. Wed 21 Jul 2010 13:17:53 GMT+1 Phosgene http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/07/are_crime_victims_neglected_by.html?page=71#comment198 "185. At 11:16am on 21 Jul 2010, Stevem65 wrote:"171. At 08:34am on 21 Jul 2010, Sue Denim wrote:Is there some way I can vote for sat_tire as minister of justice? They speak plenty of sense despite Phosgene's illogical and poorly thought out counter arguments straight from "The Guardian"."I'm sorry he's taking up that role in Saudi Arabia."----------Unlike the walnut-brains on this site, I have actually *read* the Human Rights Act 1998.You should too: it'll be an eye-opener as to how much your newspaper is taking the mick out of you. Wed 21 Jul 2010 13:11:19 GMT+1 Mark http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/07/are_crime_victims_neglected_by.html?page=71#comment197 197. At 1:07pm on 21 Jul 2010, Bob Ezergailis wrote:There is a long tradition, leading back to religion, that asserts that only the completely blameless can make legitimate accusations. In some regards this ideology taints the system, at its own dark roots, and it is commonly the fact that victims are treated more poorly than the criminals who victimized them. In some regards this is meant to secure their political silence, believing they are themselves unworthy of better consideration and that the punishment meted out to the criminal is in fact more than the victim deserves. Every victim lives in a proverbial glass house, and has cast the first stone. Of course we all know what that means, and in some significant regards it is always the victim who set themselves up to be victimized and ought to have known better, or the victimization is seen as divine or destined retribution for whatever human failings or wrong doings might be ascribed to everyperson, as if the taint of any sin, even if not criminality, is itself enough to render any instance of what some call justice as being more grace than any victim really deserves. A lot of this is unthinkingly meted out by a system that does not really know or understand itself, and is inadequately studied by objective science. Justice itself is joustice, based on putting a funded champion into the field against an adversary, and wealth itself is in some ways seen as divine providence which then washes away sin and grants grace within the same system. All of that needs much deeper scientific scrutiny to excavate down to the level of sthe ideology and superstitions that still prevail in a system that is antiquated and in many ways unfair to both victims of crime and the criminals as victims of a society that fails to take any responsibility for what they themselves largely created, still preferring to blame devils that need exorcism and incarceration into the society's hells, its jails. **********************Have to agree with this.Society via poverty & inequality creates crime.Humanity as a whole tend to do better at bashing the end result of a problem than actually going to the route cause.But it may be worth noting that we could have a theroretically perfect society & still some people will commit crimes.A certain percentage is crime is personal choice, alot of poor people with single parents growing up in council estates with no real education go on to do very well in life, but the person over the road with an identical upbringing resides in jail.Obviously the amount of crime will significantly, but never completly.Personally I've read many articles on the links between crime & inequity & the results are staggering.It's also worth noting that its not simply "poverty" alone that causes crime, as by our standards all small trible villages would be as poor as you could get, but don't suffer from immense crime.It's the difference between the rich & the poor (whatever levels they may be).I'm certain many of us live like the barons of old.Owning land, having rights, being able to vote, owning a house, working in relative confort, being able to holiday abroad, owning your own transport & a plethora of gizmos. Wed 21 Jul 2010 13:02:59 GMT+1 Bob Ezergailis http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/07/are_crime_victims_neglected_by.html?page=71#comment196 There is a long tradition, leading back to religion, that asserts that only the completely blameless can make legitimate accusations. In some regards this ideology taints the system, at its own dark roots, and it is commonly the fact that victims are treated more poorly than the criminals who victimized them. In some regards this is meant to secure their political silence, believing they are themselves unworthy of better consideration and that the punishment meted out to the criminal is in fact more than the victim deserves. Every victim lives in a proverbial glass house, and has cast the first stone. Of course we all know what that means, and in some significant regards it is always the victim who set themselves up to be victimized and ought to have known better, or the victimization is seen as divine or destined retribution for whatever human failings or wrong doings might be ascribed to everyperson, as if the taint of any sin, even if not criminality, is itself enough to render any instance of what some call justice as being more grace than any victim really deserves. A lot of this is unthinkingly meted out by a system that does not really know or understand itself, and is inadequately studied by objective science. Justice itself is joustice, based on putting a funded champion into the field against an adversary, and wealth itself is in some ways seen as divine providence which then washes away sin and grants grace within the same system. All of that needs much deeper scientific scrutiny to excavate down to the level of sthe ideology and superstitions that still prevail in a system that is antiquated and in many ways unfair to both victims of crime and the criminals as victims of a society that fails to take any responsibility for what they themselves largely created, still preferring to blame devils that need exorcism and incarceration into the society's hells, its jails. Wed 21 Jul 2010 12:07:28 GMT+1 Mark http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/07/are_crime_victims_neglected_by.html?page=70#comment195 Victimes do deserve more attention than they do currently.As I myself have been the victim of assault at least three times (the joys of living in the city), I was angry that the people involved were basically "let off", too young to do anything about (when i was younger myself), or simply not enough effort was put in to find them.I have never commited a single crime, but have been treated with disrepect numerous times by police officers. The sad & simple fact is, I have no faith in our legal system.Not in the police, lawyers, judges or laws.I grew up in a poor council estate, poverty was part of my upbringing.. but guess what?, I don't go around beating people up & stealing others possessions.Personal responsability is a part of crime also, otherwise why even make things illegal?On one side we have the "daily mail readers" as so often quoted by the "lefties" who call for massive prison sentences & capital punishment & loads of compensations.On the other side we have "unrealistic socialists" as so often quoted by the "daily mail readers" who cry any real punishment is against there human rights & the ongoing PC brigade marches on.The fact is neither one will work.We DO need harsher punishments.But we ALSO need a reduction in poverty, to reduce the most common causes of crime.We DO need to uphold human rights at all times.But we ALSO need to remove the freedom of those who do not respect others human rights.If we tackle poor education & poverty, the most common causes of crime, we can them start to implement much harsher punishments...A rich person stealing a loaf of bread is much worse than a homeless man doing it.A well educated, rich, supported person committing assault is much worse than a badly educated, poor & abandaned person cimmiting the same crime. Wed 21 Jul 2010 12:03:34 GMT+1 tc http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/07/are_crime_victims_neglected_by.html?page=70#comment194 I hope Ken Clarke spends a few hours checking out the comments on this link.......he just might come back from outer space. Wed 21 Jul 2010 11:58:17 GMT+1 Aziz Merchant http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/07/are_crime_victims_neglected_by.html?page=69#comment193 Victims are really a poor relation unless they have an uncle in the high echelon of government, are a VIP or a buddy in the law machinery. Wed 21 Jul 2010 11:56:05 GMT+1 tc http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/07/are_crime_victims_neglected_by.html?page=69#comment192 If we do not have enough prison space how can you deal effectively with all the criminals in our society? You only have to watch the numerous Police documentary programmes on TV ( .....on various channels ) to note, after any crime how NO action is taken against the criminal or some ridiculous sentence is handed out.We have become a wimpy society where all the emphasis goes on the crooks rather than the victim. Time for a shake up! Wed 21 Jul 2010 11:47:30 GMT+1 Country Jane http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/07/are_crime_victims_neglected_by.html?page=69#comment191 For to long now the pennal system has been looking toward to criminal and the leagel beagles who have made millions from them. The crime should fit the punishment. Crimminals should be made to pay for there crimes. They give up there claim to any human rights the day they commit a crime against there fellow humans. It is time the Human rights laws fitted the entire population and not the individual Wed 21 Jul 2010 11:10:58 GMT+1 Bibi http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/07/are_crime_victims_neglected_by.html?page=68#comment190 It appears to function largely for the police alone - to massage their figures, pay their salaries and generous pensions and perpetuate bias against women and ethic groups Wed 21 Jul 2010 11:03:43 GMT+1 Black_And_Proud http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/07/are_crime_victims_neglected_by.html?page=68#comment189 This post has been Removed Wed 21 Jul 2010 10:51:42 GMT+1 JohnH http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/07/are_crime_victims_neglected_by.html?page=68#comment188 I've written several posts on this thread about how the professionals in the legal system, the lawyers, police and courts all fail to take any consideration for a victim. However, there is on criminal act where the victim takes central stage and controls a lot of what happens in court. That crime is rape.A 'victim' of an alleged rape (funny how the media always report it as 'rape' which is only determined after a conviction, until then it should be accurately described as an 'alledged' or 'accusation of' rape).The victim is given every support, from annonimity to giving their testimony through a video link from another room. The present government want to extend this to the accused, a lot of people agree, a lot disagree.What is not in dispute is that a person accused of a crime HAS to be assumed innocent until a guilty verdict is obtained. A lot of people find the way some (not that many) innocent people have been accused, named and shamed by an accusation very disturbing and not fair justice.By all means consider the effect of a crime on the victim, but to bend, or change the law to the alledged victims advantage over that of an innocent accused person is wrong in principle.This is why I do not support all the calls on this subject to punish the perpetrators of crime just to assuage the feelings of the victim. Instead I support any moves to make the system itself respond to the needs of the victim, not forgetting basic tenets of law, but not forgetting that there is ALWAYS a victim of EVERY crime. Wed 21 Jul 2010 10:37:11 GMT+1 EvilPandora http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/07/are_crime_victims_neglected_by.html?page=67#comment187 Of course they don'tThe whole of the legal system, police and related services aren't bothered about the victims as it is the criminals who keep them employed.And they say crime doesn't pay!!! Wed 21 Jul 2010 10:33:13 GMT+1 Brian Berlin http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/07/are_crime_victims_neglected_by.html?page=67#comment186 Tez wrote: "We all KNOW that criminals are treated with more care than the victims - and now it's time to redress the balance."No we don't. You THINK you "know" it, because right-wing tabloids tell you it's like that. But why do you lot, normally so questioning and cynical about everything else, always believe what the Sun or Mail tell you? In fact the UK has a very strong case for being one of the best countries for helping victims; unfortunately, it has one of the worst systems for ensuring that prisoners don't re-offend, because of the "retribution not rehabilitation" ethos plugged by the cynical tabloids. Oh well, if you want to end up like America… some of us don't. Wed 21 Jul 2010 10:23:55 GMT+1 ziggyboy http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/07/are_crime_victims_neglected_by.html?page=67#comment185 The authorities treat the victims badly and I understand are left feeling like criminals themselves.It's about time something positive happens to support people who have been the victims of the crime. Wed 21 Jul 2010 10:23:23 GMT+1 Stevem65 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/07/are_crime_victims_neglected_by.html?page=66#comment184 "171. At 08:34am on 21 Jul 2010, Sue Denim wrote:Is there some way I can vote for sat_tire as minister of justice? They speak plenty of sense despite Phosgene's illogical and poorly thought out counter arguments straight from "The Guardian"."I'm sorry he's taking up that role in Saudi Arabia. Wed 21 Jul 2010 10:16:43 GMT+1 old codger http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/07/are_crime_victims_neglected_by.html?page=66#comment183 its because the criminals get legal aid which solicitors exploit to their advantage ,and victims seldom are usually accused of attacking the criminals even in their won homes , Wed 21 Jul 2010 10:14:39 GMT+1 James http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/07/are_crime_victims_neglected_by.html?page=65#comment182 The term 'penal system' says it all with far too many bleeding hearts wasting public time and money worrying about the rights and welfare of criminals when their focus should be, without question, on victims of crime.More often than not, it is the victims who in this country are penalised, often with the complete exclusion of consequences for those who have broken the law. Wed 21 Jul 2010 10:07:49 GMT+1 U14368420 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/07/are_crime_victims_neglected_by.html?page=65#comment181 This post has been Removed Wed 21 Jul 2010 09:51:12 GMT+1 Freedom1235 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/07/are_crime_victims_neglected_by.html?page=65#comment180 Dearie me. Of course it's their job. You're confusing them with social workers and therapy vampires.As to your suggestion that "the police just concentrate too hard on the criminals and getting them into prison", that is because that is their job. What do you expect them to do? Pop around every week for a cup of tea and to listen to someone whining on and on about their car getting scratched in Tesco's car park? People need to toughen up a bit and stop expecting mummy to kiss their knee better every time they fall over. Not all incidents as petty as your car getting scratched,, for example some are much more serious like people being abused or rape so there are places where the police should get up to scratch. Wed 21 Jul 2010 09:45:06 GMT+1 Chris http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/07/are_crime_victims_neglected_by.html?page=64#comment179 It is a sad indictment of the penal system that the BBC have to feature this HYS!! Of course the UK justice system favours the criminal, that is why the recent crime statistics were manipulated to reflect a drop in crime. The real crime figures and associated penalties would be astounding.The general public knows that we are looked upon as second-class citizens with regard to justice, consequently old people remain indoors and we don't venture into town centres at night. We no longer bring juveniles to task anymore over petty littering, foul-mouthed abuse, anti-social behaviour etc. It just isn't worth it. The victim will always be penalised, as the thugs & yobs know their rights under the "Human Righs Act".Law & order in this country is doomed and the victim will never see justice. Wed 21 Jul 2010 09:28:16 GMT+1 Tez http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/07/are_crime_victims_neglected_by.html?page=64#comment178 "Do you think the penal system could be improved?" (HYS):This old chesnut again...In general, the Law & Penal system have been pro-criminal since PC reared it's obnoxious head. We all KNOW that criminals are treated with more care than the victims - and now it's time to redress the balance.Media doesn't help in this:Too often during Media Interviews - they seem to take as 'Gospel' - the claims of 'innocence' from those who are accused of crimes - before they have even faced Trial.This is especially the case for 'would-be' illegal immigrants etc.Time for Media to resurrect the conveniently 'forgotten' word - 'Alleged' - when it comes to claims of innocence TOO... Wed 21 Jul 2010 09:08:23 GMT+1 Johnnybgood http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/07/are_crime_victims_neglected_by.html?page=64#comment177 The whole system needs a good a kick up the bum. Victims - in many cases - are left feeling `why did I bother reporting the crime`.The criminals are given too much attention and care.THEY ARE CRIMINALS!!! Wed 21 Jul 2010 08:33:57 GMT+1 Magi Tatcher http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/07/are_crime_victims_neglected_by.html?page=63#comment176 Don't become a victim of yourself. Forget about the thief waiting in the alley; what about the thief in your mind? Wed 21 Jul 2010 08:31:52 GMT+1