Originally Posted by The Bear:
I speak as someone with neither a criminal record or ANY criminality in my background, and in that I am far from unique, especially amongst the older generation (I’m 60+)



Sorry, pleased don’t take this as a personal attack because it isn’t.

Maybe it would be better if you and others in your position did find yourself restricted to low paying jobs, or even spent periods unemployed, and did so along with a whole lot of other people with a criminal record in order to send a clear message to younger people that criminality was NOT a thing to get involved in since apart from anything else the outcome would be dreadful for them.



Engaging in criminal behaviour is not a mistake. It is a deliberate act. As for second chances, why should this be the case in the event of crime?

It’s not as if someone has screwed up an expensive workpiece in a factory and that it then has to be scrapped, then by all means don’t sack them on the spot, give them a second chance, but why give a criminal a second chance?

It’s well said you cheat me, shame on you. You cheat me twice, shame on me.

In any case it’s not a question of being continually punished, it’s a question of a persons future career prospects being determined when some career require the highest moral standards and that includes NOT getting into crime.

Criminality is directly linked to morality. The two are mutually exclusive. Where a person of high moral standards is required for a position then a criminal record from anywhere in their past shows that they are not such a person.

I do wonder how strict “positive” security vetting is these days, and if the records of grandparents, including any known political affiliations they had, are still taken into account.

Did you ever come across the Stanford prison experiment? The experiment shows that people assume the role you assign them. If you assign them the role of criminal they behave like one. I too am a criminal, my crime was victimless and if you had experienced what I had, you would not say what you do. I went all the way to the High Court to clear my name and what actually happened was the prosecution blatantly broke the law during my case. I will never forget that and I treat these people with contempt. You could say I have acquired a criminal's mind, which is basically that the system is so corrupt the rules hold no moral authority anymore.

Let me say one thing else. Society needs bread and circuses, I'm ok at the moment, I have some bread but the circuses are declining around here as a result of people with no bread and the no smoking ban. If however I were in a position where I had nothing to loose I would simply attack the people who were attacking me. They have no right to do the things they do and all I say is it's lucky for them I have not encountered any real jobsworth, because the injustice builds up and up and then there comes a point where it is released. A bit like society really.

Your way of thinking is dangerous, especially in these times. You want a perfect society where everyone behaves like complete robots following a program. That won't happen in this country and if the system of law breaks down we will have to form our own control systems. The police are not interested in dealing with the kind of crime that affects people; they just concentrate on the sort that affects the revenue of certain vested interests like say insurance companies and all sorts of other people who feed off the system. Criminals are not at all what you think, they are just normal people who on the whole don't fit into the box you say they aught to fit into.

You see, the system has become so restrictive that more and more people will not act out the role they have been ascribed, the result being a criminal underclass. This will just build and build, it won't pay taxes and it will have its own systems. It's power in numbers and one day one of your favourite do-gooder policeman will say the wrong thing to the wrong person and that will be it for them. It's already starting to happen, one case recently a policeman did a stop and search on a 15-year-old girl. A few minutes' later about eighty people surrounded him. The back up was not enough and the people got away. People like you cause this sort of thing to happen with your idealised world of conformity.
[Rep]

To add to all the above...

I agree the Bears view is dangerous and ill thought out to say the least. I have never been to prison either but I do not agree with his point of view.

We live in a society where:

A student who asked if a Police horse is gay gets locked up and charged whilst an Australian Peadophile is permitted to move here.

A society where a creep like Nick Griffon is taken to court for supposed hate speeches but where Abu Qatar and dangerous criminal and funder of terrorism is released from prison, let alone deported.

The list of stupid actrion by the government, CPS and police is endless.

After all Tony Blair made it illegal to buy spuds from Poland, but perfectly legal for BAe systems to sell weapons to repressive regimes. And hey is somebody takes a kick back in the process the government with squash any investigation.

This is a society where if you speak out against government policy in any meaningful way and can affect change you are hounded (or bumped off) i.e. David Kelly being a good example.

The Bears vision would create an underclass, probably 1/5th of the population at least which would find it difficult to find work, possibly increase the welfare burden massively on this country and lead to instability.

Tell me what is better, the teenage thief who reforms does his time in prison and then goes on to be a doctor or...

The man who can no longer get a job regardless of education because he has a criminal record for dropping litter or forgetting to put his seatbelt on?

Bear you better hope none of your family come a cropper through some idiotic action of the police force or you may be forced to wake up to reality.


Ea of dune
[Rep]

I hold rigorously to my beliefs that criminal records should NEVER be expunged.

No if’s, no but’s, no excuses, you did the crime? Take the consequences. All of them.
[Rep]

Bear> Ok so people convicted of homosexual liasons prior to removal of the law banning them should continue to have to declare this when they apply for jobs?

What about people who have very obviously been arrested for political reasons on trumped up charges?

You haven't really thought this through. One day it could be your family members, don't expect any sympathy from any of us.

Ea of dune
[Rep]

Originally Posted by Ea of Dune:
Bear> Ok so people convicted of homosexual liasons prior to removal of the law banning them should continue to have to declare this when they apply for jobs?

Yes, since it was illegal at the time. What is at issue is not what they did it is hat it was against the law at the time that they did it.

Originally Posted by Ea of Dune:
What about people who have very obviously been arrested for political reasons on trumped up charges?

The court of appeal will eventually resolve such issues.

Originally Posted by Ea of Dune:
You haven't really thought this through. One day it could be your family members, don't expect any sympathy from any of us.

I have more than thought it through since one of my family (a nephew) IS affected by this. He was caught shoplifting at the age of eighteen and I absolutely believe that a record of his demonstrated criminality should remain with him throughout his life.

It should e up to those who have anything to do with him in the future to decide what action to take in dealing with him.
[Rep]

Originally Posted by The Bear:
I hold rigorously to my beliefs that criminal records should NEVER be expunged.

No if’s, no but’s, no excuses, you did the crime? Take the consequences. All of them.

That's an example of fascism. No if's and no but's, just do as you are ordered.

(Take the consequences. All of them.)
[Rep]

Originally Posted by Baron von Lotsov:
That's an example of fascism. No if's and no but's, just do as you are ordered.

(Take the consequences. All of them.)

No, not fascism in the case of a response to criminal behaviour, simply a case of decent morality.

People may not like the idea that they are what they are but the fact remains that if a person breaks the law then they are criminals.

AS for a ‘victimless crime’, that’s an interesting concept and one that I am yet to see shown as being valid.
[Rep]

Originally Posted by :
AS for a ‘victimless crime’, that’s an interesting concept and one that I am yet to see shown as being valid.

The lass who stood and read the names of dead British soldiers by the Cenotaph was arrested. She comitted a crime, who was the victim?

The holocaust survivor who yelled nonsense at Jack Straw during the Labour party conference was arrested under the terrorism act, who was the victim of his crime?

Ea of dune
[Rep]

Originally Posted by :
Yes, since it was illegal at the time. What is at issue is not what they did it is hat it was against the law at the time that they did it.

So these people are immoral criminals because society was bigoted? If that is the kind of Britain you envisage, where by the government can make punative laws at will and everyone has to sit there and take it then you really should move to China.

These people are now required to declare their sexuality when they apply for a job because of their so called "immoral act". That should be a private issue and should have no bearing on their job.

Bear you are thinking in black and white and unfortunatly the world opperates in shades of grey.

Ea of dune
[Rep]

Originally Posted by Ea of Dune:
The lass who stood and read the names of dead British soldiers by the Cenotaph was arrested. She comitted a crime, who was the victim?

The victims were the people put at increased risk of unrest in society by her acting in a way that had the potential to cause a greater risk of disorder.

The victims were all of us since a woman was blatantly breaking the law of the land. She deserved to be prosecuted.

Originally Posted by Ea of Dune:
The holocaust survivor who yelled nonsense at Jack Straw during the Labour party conference was arrested under the terrorism act, who was the victim of his crime?

The attendees at the conference who were constrained from doing the same and the people outside who were put at increased risk of unrest in society by his acting in a way that had the potential to cause a greater risk of disorder.

In EVERY case where a law exists that people are obeying the actions of someone disobeying that law raises the risk of others who felt constrained by that law from being encouraged to cause trouble.

Are there times when laws should be broken for the greater good and so are entitled to take the law into our own hands as WE see fit?

Or do we live in a democratic society where our form of government decide on our behalf which laws should or should not be in place?

Imperfect as our democracy presently is, and in need of root and branch change, it is still the basis of the society in which we live.

The solution is not to break laws if wrong or imperfect laws are in place and are not being repealed or corrected, it is to correct the lawmaking processes.

Regarding the prosecuting of homosexual males before the reforms came into law.

The people prosecuted were not prosecuted for their sexuality, they were prosecuted for breaking the law of the land.

The government can not make punitive laws at will, we have the parliamentary process.

Parliament can make punitive laws, and when the make up of parliament changes the opportunity to repeal laws occurs and repealing of many unpopular or outdated or simply incorrect or inappropriate legislation does take place.

That people who did break the law when the law was in place must declare that they did so is not about their sexuality, it is about their disregard for the law of the land. THAT is what is at issue.

As for thinking in black and white, as far as the law is concerned it IS a matter of black and white, you either obey it, or you break it.

If you break it you ARE a criminal, not for the act that you undertake, but for breaking the law, and that makes you a CRIMINAL.

It is the moral turpitude that has been demonstrated by having broken the law that is a part of a persons character and that future employers and others have a right to know about.
[Rep]