UK: Offenders to be chipped like dogs

Post Reply New Topic

Not well intentioned at all. Have you ever read Nineteen Eighty-four?

Both statistics could be true. There are two types of cell being mentioned. There's police cells, of which there may be half a dozen or so in a police station. They're used for keeping the people hauled in off the street until somoene decides what to do with them. They're for the drunkards, psychotics, street brawlers and such. Then there's prison cells, which are located inside large prisons. Those are for convicted criminals whilst they're serving their sentence. I think they might also be used for people who've been charged with a crime but not yet

There is a maximum number of people that each cell can hold. If the prison cells can hold a maximum of 80,000 people (that number sounds about right to me) then if the number of criminals needing a cell goes above 80,000, then the authorities are forced to either overcrowd the prison cells - which will be dangerous - or to use the police cells. This is also an unwise course of action, because police cells are not designed to hold people for long periods of time, and the police have better things to do than babysit convicted criminals.

So the increase in total prisoners is from 60,000 in 1997 to 120,000 in 2997. (This makes the assumption that the number of people who actually belong in police cells remains constant and that the growth police cell population is due to prison overspill.) Doubling the prison population in ten years *is* soaring.

great, more bogus statistifying.

"So the increase in total prisoners is from 60,000 in 1997 to 120,000 in 2997...Doubling the prison population in ten years *is* soaring."

uh that's actually MORE than 10 years.

My apologies. I made a typo. I intended to type 2007. If you subtract 10 years from 2007, you'll get 1997.

However it's not bogus statistifying. It's a logical analysis made by actually READING the words and making sense of them.

"prison population" = number of people in prison cells
"prison cells" = cells within big prisons for CONVICTED criminals
"police cells" = cells in police stations for short-term processing of UNCONVICTED offenders

In 1997 the PRISON POPULATION was 60,000.
In 2007 (ten years later) the PRISON POPULATION was 80,000

HOWEVER: The prison cells are now full, so convicted criminals are housed in POLICE CELLS, which are intended for different prisoners altogether. The number of prisoners in police cells is now 60,000, which includes both convicted and unconvicted prisoners.

There is insufficient information to differentiate the number of convicted prisoners in police cells who ought to be in prison cells and thus included in the PRISON POPULATION total. However in 2006, the number of unconvicted prisoners in police cells was 4,617.

So I make the one and only assumption: The genuine police cell population has not grown. Such a huge jump in numbers in a single year cannot be the result of a massive upscale in crime in the UK, because I live in the UK and I would have noticed.

Therefore, the increase in the police cell occupancy is due to an overflow from the prison population since the prisons are full. The number of convicted prisoners who ought to be in prison cells are aren't is thus 60,000 minus 4,500 (rounding for convenience) which comes to 55,500. So I add that to the number of convicted prisoners in the prison cells where they ought to be, and the result is a corrected prison population of 135,000.

well that's very pedantic of you dear, but are you working for the pro-microchip crowd or what? are you in favour of this thing?

I think it's a horrific and stupid idea, and yet another doomed-to-fail initiative from the idiots that run this country. But I'm also a pedant, and can't help pointing out mistakes when I see them. I think that stupid ideas should be exposed for the stupid ideas they are without resorting to false accusations that run the risk of lending them credibility they don't deserve.

from the title, I thought this had something to do with a wood-chipper. Glad that's not the case. RFID tags are in everything nowadays. This is kind of an invasion of privacy, however...

It would be nice to be able to use an implanted chip as authentication for the door of your house. No more annoying keys or cards.

I already only have to hold my wallet over the turnstyle in the subway station and the RFID card inside wirelessly opens the gate for me. It's really nice not to have to look inside the wallet for the exact card I need. I'd like to be able to use that kind of technology for other things.

I think there may be some truth in the "conspiracy theories" about the New World Order and a one world government.

I haven't watched the video but it sounds interesting.

It’s true that our government likes any excuse it can find to increase its Big-Brother-style powers. But it doesn’t necessarily follow that one should dismiss concerns about the rising crime rate with talk of “moral panic”.
Similarly, you can have quite legitimate concerns about the rising crime rate without believing that a surveillance society is the answer.

60,000 to 80,000 in ten years is an increase of 33%, far higher than the population increase in that time. But even those numbers are misleading; the British police recently admitted they ignore 2 million crimes per year.

The crime rate was far lower again in, say, the 1950s, and back then the country was far poorer, and had no CCTV cameras or DNA database. One of the big differences back then was that would-be criminals actually had something to fear from the law, and the police were actually on the side of the law-abiding majority.

It’s largely the fault of our politicians that the crime rate in Britain has increased so much. Undoing some of what they have done would help. More surveillance is not the answer.
But then, it’s not really intended to be. Our elites are not interested in protecting people from crime; they’re interested in protecting themselves from us.

Some things that are intended for good can in turn be used for the bad. I wonder if big government officials like, say, the President of the United States would be forced to get a chip? If they weren't, then they would be separating themselves from the rest of society, almost like in the days when they had the Feudal System, except not exactly. I think it can be potentially dangerous to make only a few people in charge of something like this, or for them have the power of knowing where almost anyone in the country is, because there's always the chance that a person might be in it for themselves and not for the good of the people of that country. I think it's better to have a country ruled more locally than strictly by the federal government. Crime doesn't go away only by increasing surveillance and making people feel watched, like a prison, and then maybe they might not do the crime that they wanted to. I think that if people held the bigger stick and kept to their word for giving justice to the guilty and the innocent that crime would decrease. I'm not saying surveillance isn't necessary, but that a full-scale installation of surveillance microchips is a little too much. Plus, what if someone like a terrorist happened to hack into that system and then suddenly they would have the power of knowing where almost everyone was? Then it would get very bad.