Cressy (Vic) Accident

[fmc351]

Originally Posted by ltd

The fact that a policeman can be spat on by the public and not allowed to do anything is inexcusable, and the fact that political influence for expedient ends has anything to do with our force/service/force (remember the name change) is equally reprehensible.

Couldnt agree more.

Originally Posted by ltd

As for who took the guns away as asked by fmc351, it was Howard. He did the guns amnesty to reduce the population of firearms in the community with impunity and anonymity for the owners with the best intentions; the left state governments were supposed to follow up with automatic prison sentences for illegal firearms possession but again failed to deliver.

The point was a right wing government took away freedoms, not a left one. The number of 'dangerous' firearms is hardly dented, its simply 'harmless' guns and law abiding citizens that paid the price.

My beef with your post was the nonsensical association of Australian left wing politics with socialism, its not even close. Anyone who thinks that way is intentionally misleading, or has not a clue what socialism is. Australia, has always had a degree of 'socialist' practices, such as housing, state run energy, water supply, roads, there are many, and most nations including the US and the UK share those traits. Truly socialist nations tend not to be soft on crime, so your post on that association was nothing but a red herring. These sorts of attitudes display party politics, rather than making informed decisions based on say, policy.

Originally Posted by ltd

fmc351, I didn't mention singapore which by the way has a zero tolerance approach to crime and as such has very little crime, and China refers to itself as Communist China. In Russia they have adapted a relatively zero tolerance approach to law and order.

China says its protecting Tibet, its not invading as it has always been its territory. I dont care what they claim, political systems are defined by the system in place, not what is claimed. Like I said, socialist nations tend to be hard on crime not soft. Your assertion the do-gooders here are socialist is ill founded, some may be, but their socialist views dont relate to their view on crime, and soft on crime isnt solely the domain of left wing politics.

Originally Posted by ltd

As for your assertion that policing and tightened laws produces negative outcomes, I'd suggest you find a shred of evidence to support such a vexatious and flawed statement; as all evidence proves the contrary.

Where the hell did you get that cr4p from? I never said anything about defending being soft on crime, Im opposed to softly softly but with qualifications though. Lifes complicated, people look for one size fits all solutions because they are unable or at least too lazy to form complex thought. Sometimes softly softly works, in other cases its at least worth the shot and reflects a civilised society, in others its pointless and counter-productive. Problem is this vreates a sliding scale and sliding scales are not consistent, consistency being an imperative part of the cornerstone of democracy, the rule of law.

Not to mention the costs of serious punishments, the publics tendency to scream for action, then cry about the cost, and positively bemoan at the methods of raising it. Politicians of all sides desire re-election, the publics lack of understanding, reluctance to form complex thought and even apathy until election day, hardly encourages action from government. Talk to 20 parents tomorrow and ask if they like the soft on crime approach. Ill bet 15 say no, and thats a majority. I wonder why the alternative party isnt elected then, they offer no alternative either, they suffer the same restraints as the other.