An afterthought to (and some additional information on) the Today programme’s three-item (one, two, three) ‘don’t lock them up’ fest of last Thursday, noted by David here :
Two points. One is the BBC double-whammy reporting – that not only do Barnardo’s think that too many young criminals are being locked up, but the Parliamentary Justice Committee think the same thing – which was reported as a separate item on Radio 5 news that day.
Alas, the BBC failed to tell us who’s at the top of the list giving evidence to the Parliamentary Justice Committee. You wouldn’t be too surprised to know that it’s – wait for it – Barnardo’s.
In fact the list of organisations giving evidence to the committee (mostly ‘fake charities’, the bulk of whose income comes from the taxpayer – Barnardo’s for example closed its last children’s home in 1989) is one to warm a social worker’s heart, and the evidence presented (here) by the assorted pointy-heads deeply depressing. It’s worth a read if you want to know why crime is so high in the UK.
But I digress. The thrust of the evidence presented by Barnardos, and through them by the Justice Committee, is that too many young criminals are being jailed. Why too many ? Because – wait for it – the judges are too harsh. There are government guidelines – which the judges ignore and go their own punitive way. Were they to keep to the guidelines fewer young criminals would be in jail (according to the evidence presented over 97% of young criminals appearing in court are NOT sent down – I cannot find the figures, but I would be very surprised if the majority of young criminals ever got as far as an actual court appearance).
A small thought experiment. Imagine – even if you live in Islington – that you go out onto the streets of your neighbourhood and ask, say, a hundred people at random if they think judges are too harsh on young criminals. How many do you think would agree that they were ? Perhaps the BBC should have headed their story :
Even the Today programme might have trouble with that spin, but the BBC are happy to present (albeit obliquely) this thesis with a straight face.
A small quote may be in order here, from the first chapter of Steven Pinker’s excellent work The Blank Slate.
“The problem is not just that these claims are preposterous but that they did not acknowledge they were saying things that common sense might call into question. This is the mentality of a cult, in which fantastical beliefs are flaunted as a proof of one’s piety. That mentality cannot coexist with an esteem for the truth …”
The most irritating and inaccurate nonsense the bcc broadcasts regarding prisons i related to womens prisons. They often get some sexist idiot moaning about the treatment of women in prison and how none of them should even be there, when of course in reality women invariably get a big discount due to their gender, nicer facilities and often don't even face justice in the first place (eg females committing perjury in rape cases, females committing domestic violence, female paedophiles and sex offenders etc).
Worse still, I read recently that the bbc "charities" such as Comic Relief actually give money to organsaitions campaigning for closing down women's prisons!
Fake charities being paid by a bent regime to lobby itself to promote a set of pre determined ideas?
The westminster rabble have learned well from from their eurotrash overseers!
Fake charities rake in cash yet fail to actually deliver help to those in actual need, they are employment clubs for the 'in crowd' kerching…money….money…rabble rousers for hire…those who can print off the most tear jerking posters and peddle the sobbiest stories to media chums and all the time being bought off by the commissars..kerching & hows yer pension pot?
Like mafioso they enjoy a VIP lifestyle by leaching and crookery, the fake charity scam is everything thats wrong with our society.
PS,
The world of the fake charities is a world of tax evasion,crooked lobbying,luxury yachts and private schools for the leaders kiddies, expensive jollies photos with super stars and influence in the circles of power.
Its all abour money and power, influence and intrigue, the billionaire gets more back in tax breaks than he will ever give in handouts which are picked over by the gaggle of fake charity vultures untill only a fraction of the cash is left.
Think of a spring flowing down hill and the commissars/crooks/charletons/snake oil carpebaggers at the front guzzling at the source while the peasant scum downhill get the dregs!
So much cash is at stake now that these scum are giving up even pretending to actually help the peasant scum anymore, I mean when you are a VIP commissar the very last thing you wanna do is get yer pinkies mucky!
Interesting that Barnardo's has airbrushed its evangelical Christian origins from its website – you have to look hard to find out who Thomas Barnardo really was and why he did what he did.
It's a common metamorphosis. dictated by the pressures of funding and social acceptance. Like the Children's Society ('Church of England'), Barnardo's signed up to the 'gay adoption' ideology of gay Labour activists.
… to which I should add that Barnardo's shame about its Christian origins contrasts with the openness of 'Livability' (formerly John Groom's Association, also of
Victorian foundation) which welcomes all and makes no bones of its Christian inspiration;
http://www.livability.org.uk/page.asp?id=1326
Martina Milburn, Princes Trust Chief Executive is an ex-employee of, wait for it, yes, you guessed it, the BBC.
Wiki:"She also worked as a researcher on a number of BBC television appeals, including Challenge Anneka from Malawi, Going Live and Blue Peter specials from Jamaica…In July 2000 she became the Chief Executive of the BBC Children in Need Appeal"
The fake charity – BBC – quangocrat revolving door at full spin.
Great quote Laban. Too true.
Imagine if the sentencing guidelines were changed in a Michael Howardish direction – admittedly something with a probability of nearly zero, even if the Tories get in again – and judges continued to sentence according to what they thought best, this time less leniently than the guidelines.
'Too few' young offenders jailed
Somehow I just can't see the BBC producing this headline.
In fact we have been here before, for when Michael Howard did bring in his three strikes rule for burglars, the judiciary ignored it. And surprise surprise we got no BBC headlines about "too few" burglars being jailed. Instead we got BBC analysis pieces explaining that fewer people needed to go to prison and it was fortunate that the judiciary had been able to work around the absurdly harsh guidelines.
Sorry, I mean to say "more leniently than the guidelines"
Perhaps the BBC are pushing the too many people in prison line so that they can keep hold of more of their presenters.