The glorious Police and Justice system in the UK
I just came across a post that claimed that shooting a British police officer was “very bad” for the criminal. The author explained that a criminal had "no incentive" to use force against the police as "sentencing is lenient", but if force is used against a police officer, the police will immediately deploy large forces and "armed police officers" (oh, the horror) to arrest the impudent criminal, who might then even get shot. She also insisted on the extreme rules and constraints imposed on armed police officers.
A rosy picture vs reality
The best way to keep crime low is a high risk of getting caught and convicted. The severity of the punishment is less relevant. Even the death penalty will not be dissuasive if the risk of getting caught is very low.
A low conviction rate can be mitigated somewhat, though not entirely, with harsher sentences.
So if the UK applies lenient sentences, are they good at catching and convicting criminals?
Not at all! They are catastrophically bad!
In the UK, the probability of getting caught, much less facing a court for a violent crime is ridiculously small - less than 10%. And even if a suspect faces a court, that doesn’t mean he will be convicted.
From the BBC, reporting on the official statistics:
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-44884113
The only “crime” that can get you a conviction (if you are caught!) with a 40% chance is the mere possession of a weapon. So if you just would like to carry a weapon against the numerous violent criminals who roam the streets of the UK, you will suffer severe consequences.
But if you stab or bludgeon people, you have a 90% chance of walking away scot-free… 😒
As the article explains, only 3% of rapists will even face a court.
“Crimes in the UK typically carry short sentences”
This is a huge problem - not only is it extremely unlikely to get caught and convicted, in addition, the sentences are lenient!
And even those who are convicted and imprisoned will probably not do more than a 20–30% of their prison term.
Just how bad is the justice system in the UK?
The UK justice system is clearly biased and extremely unfair in addition to being ineffective and totally dysfunctional.
To illustrate just how bad it can get, take this woman who stabbed her boyfriend - no prison time, because it could “damage her medical career”. So they want a psychopath to become a doctor? The excuse for not sending her to prison is an absolute outrage!
There's absolutely no favoritism towards good looking young women. None at all. I wonder what they headline had been if the perpetrator had been a man. I would expect: "Violent young man jailed for 10 years for stabbing his girlfriend, ending his future medical career".
The injustice in the case of the "Pimlico pusher" was particularly eggregious: a black woman shoved an elderly white woman in front of a bus and screamed racist insults at her (which is why the race of the perpetrator and victim are relevant). Although this was clearly attempted murder, she was not sent to prison, a clear case of "black privilege":
https://courtnewsuk.co.uk/pimlico-pusher-walks-free/
Then there’s this charming character: Ahdel Ali was sentenced to 26 years in prison as leader of the Telford gang that targeted 100 girls as young as 13 by raping them and forcing them into prostitution.
He was released after just 8 years, walking freely among his former victims when he should have been sentenced to lifelong detention with no chance of parole:
The rights of the victims were completely ignored:
Allen spoke of the issue in the Commons last week, demanding that victims of child sexual exploitation are treated better. In an open letter to local paper the Shropshire Star, she added that his victims are ‘living in fear’ and should have been properly consulted before his release. ‘Victims and members of the public would have expected a 22-year sentence to mean that the community could have time to heal and victims would be able to get on with their lives,’ she said. ‘What we see in this case is that one of the main perpetrators is being released into the community only five years after the trial. ‘This is clearly of enormous concern to victims in this case, especially those who gave evidence in court.’ Four young women, who were aged 13 to 16 when they were abused between 2007 and 2009, gave evidence to Worcester Crown Court during the trial in 2013. |
At least one category of people are protected by the justice system: THE CRIMINALS!
THREE "pure evil" brothers have received up to £500,000 in legal aid after raping children in Rotherham - while dozens of their victims have yet to receive any compensation.
Are you a danger to society, in the UK? The courts will protect you!
Did you rape an underage girl but claim that you “didn’t know” that this was illegal? Well then you will be spared prison. How any judge could accept this defense is incomprehensible. The usual line is "ignorance does not protect you from prosecution". If you claim ignorance of a tax law, you will be shown no merci. But raping an underage girl? Well who could be expected to know that this is illegal?
Needless to say: if this had been a young man of British descent, he would have been judged harshly.
This racist bias is much worse than you might think. Did you rape 1400 underage girls for 30 years but you were not white? Well then the police and social services just ignored your crimes, because being seen as “racist” would be worse than what the criminals did to those girls:
Too many pedophiles to prosecute them all
The Chief Constable Simon Bailey, of the National Police Chiefs' Council, thinks that pedophiles should not all be jailed ... apparently among others because there are too many of them. Their victims will be destroyed for life, but so what?
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-39112911
The UK police and justice system have very clear priorities. They prefer to use police forces to prosecute "online hate speech", such as criticising Islam or the transgender ideology. Or violating commercial regulations.
Do not sell antiques or violate liencing laws!
Do you sell antique decorative weapons to collectors who are willing to pay a very high price for such beautiful objects? Then you are a dangerous criminal who must be arrested and whose life must be destroyed:
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/police-seize-1000-weapons-raid-1862046
Antique weapons worth about a thousand pounds, each, have a 0.00001% chance of being used in a crime. But the police sure showed that evil antique seller that the they mean business for violating licencing laws...
Because naturally bad people will buy extremely expensive collectors’ items that are impossible to conceal to commit violent crimes for which they could just use kitchen knives or machetes from a garden store 🤦♂️
How the UK fights violent crime
The UK does not really fight violent crime. That's too hard and also ... racist. It's much easier to just ban random tools that may be used to commit crimes, but which could also be used to prevent them, such as guns and knifes.
So the UK severely restricted the right to own firearms. You may still buy shotguns, but they will be limited to 3 cartridges capacity at most, for pump action rifles, and the process to legally buy one is ridiculously complex.
Because the gun ban worked so well (NOT!), the British government also banned knives with lots of help from activist groups. Look at all these fools who demanded from government to ban sharp pieces of metal to restrict their own rights, which criminals never care about:️
Banning things that they can’t even keep out of prisons totally makes sense:
The success of that ban was so spectacular that knife crimes are up to 40K per year just for the region of London. There's now one machete attack every 90 minutes in Britain:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5609593/One-machete-attack-90-minutes-UK-streets.html
It’s at the point where Somali mothers send their boys back to the country to keep them safe. And that’s not “right wing propaganda”, that’s from The Guardian:
But at least gun crime is down, right? Not really, no... it's much worse than at any poine before the gun ban:
An infamous BLM activist was shot in the head by a rival gang in London in a drive-by shooting:
Notice the irony of a black woman who was a member of a violent gang claiming that she was "oppressed", in the UK, and who ranted about "evil white people", getting shot by black men...
Here's a title British people were not used to before the gun ban:
'Wild west' shoot-out in Manchester
16 year old boy died of bullet wounds in London after second fatal attack:
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-london-43632352
Criminals use guns to rob gas stations…
https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/local-news/thugs-threaten-staff-with-guns-958751
"London bloodbath" totally shows how crime is under control... 2 teenagers died the same day, one by by gun shot wound, one by stabbing. The gun and knife bans totally work.
Gun crime in London was up 42% in 2016 - and it keeps getting worse
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-39578500
The Met Police statement about "complex social reasons why more young people carry knives" would be hilarious if it wasn't so sad. There's nothing "complex" about it. Any barbarian from the bronze age could have explained it.
The UK has the dubious honor of almost having caught up with Bangladesh in the rate of acid attacks… but at least it’s not antique swords that cost 1′000 pounds a piece 🙄
Killing unarmed police officers is easy
But if thugs attack a police officer, then they are really, really in trouble. They will be immediately arrested due to the special efforts of the police. Right? Right?
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2012/sep/18/woman-police-officer-killed-manchester
So they caught the suspect after an intense manhunt and forced him to surender at gun point? No, he gave himself up... why wouldn't he? With the lenient laws and even more lenient execution of any penalties, his risk of suffering dire consequences is minimal.
Shortly after the incident Cregan handed himself in at a police station in Hyde. He was subsequently arrested on suspicion of the murder of both officers, as well as on suspicion of two counts of murder in relation to the killings of a father and son, who died in separate attacks this year.
Attacks on police officers happen all the time. And they are proud about being unarmed, apparently...
The criminal on the right attacked the police woman on the left of this web page below below. He used an ax, cracked her skull and almost murdered her. She was only saved by the intervention of a citizen who was willing to risk his own life by tackling the criminal. It would have been easier if she or the civilian had been legally armed... it's like crying victory after you barely survived a needless challenge by tying your hands behind your back while moving among more and more dangerous, unhinged criminals.
2 officers were stabbed in London just 2 weeks ago, on September 17, by a certain Mohammed Rahman. 6 officers had trouble taking him down:
https://twitter.com/Terror_Alarm/status/1570869707116548098?s=20&t=YQ8AaQjXmXK6w0LLHF1O7A
The unarmed officers could not just shoot him, which would have been the appropriate action. Failing to do so sent 2 officers to hospital. They might have died of their knife wounds. This is why in the US, police officers shoot armed suspects who do not comply. Incidentally, even unarmed suspects may represent a threat. It all depends on the circumstances. This video shows a situation where the use of deadly force by the police would have been entirely justified.
Looking up the name Mohammed Rahman to know if anything new has been published about his case, the first link I get is from 2020 - when a Mohammed Rahman murdered a “love rival” by cutting his throat… 😱 That's a complete coincidence, but illustrates the situation in the UK.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-tyne-55309247
People are so safe now, with all those gun and knife prohibitions, it’s breathtaking. The perpetrator got a 19 year sentence of which he will probably do 5.
Do not defend yourself
Apart from sellers of antique objects, there is one category of “evil criminals” who will be mercilessly prosecuted, in the UK! Innocent people who try to defend themselves against criminals:
https://metro.co.uk/2017/12/11/pensioner-jailed-shooting-burglar-dead-self-defence-7151230/
This is another classic case of self-defense prosecuted as a crime: a 78 year old homeowner was arrested and is accused of murder for having defended his own life with a screwdriver against 2 intruders who invaded his home in the middle of the night.
In the UK, people are so well protected against owning effective tools of self-defense that they are totally unable to protect themselves against violent criminals. In this case, a husband was forced to listin to his unarmed, helpless wife getting murdered by a man she had already told the police about. She knew she was threatened by this man, she could not go out and buy a gun to defend herself.
The UK justice system is run by imbeciles
If I had to give a short summary of the UK legal system, I’d say it was designed by a gang of insane, drunk Marxist psychopaths who love criminals, but I guess I’m overly optimistic. They are not just insane, they are suicidal - and they persist in error!
This is the “elite” that creates the UK criminal code:
Remember Usman Khan, the knifeman on the London bridge?
Cambridge Professors Amy Ludlow @ACLudlow and Ruth Armstrong @cambridgecrim organised a charity run in October 2018. Jack Merritt, one of their students, promoted the charity run. The funds raised were directly used to buy Usman Khan a Chrome laptop. Usman later murdered Jack.
Yes, they did a fundraiser for this charming individual here:
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/usman-khan-who-was-the-knifeman-xsb8g72n2
More about Usman Khan:
https://heavy.com/news/2019/11/usman-khan/
Oh but those are just outliers, they are not representative for the entire UK legal system, you say? You would be wrong! Criminologists in the UK and from around the world defended these imbeciles who are causing their own civilization to collapse.
https://www.pressreader.com/uk/the-sunday-telegraph/20191201/281668256836384
Learning ability: ZERO!
It looks like those who study criminology are mostly taught to worry about the perpetrators and their "reintegration" into society, rather than about the well-being of the sane, non-criminal citizens.
Could it be done any better?
In Switzerland, anyone can legally own a gun and use it in self-defense! While technically illegal to carry outside the home, since 1999, if someone does and uses the gun in legitimate self-defense, the violation of the carry law will be considered as irrelevant, as a higher interest was protected.
We have an extremely low rate of home invasions and homicides (about 0.5 to 0.7 per 100′000 or 50 to 70 cases per year). Only 10% of those homicides are committed with guns, despite the presence of 1 - 3 guns in more than 50% of all households.
These are the Swiss laws about self-defense:
http://www.admin.ch/opc/en/classified-compilation/19370083/index.html
Legitimate self-defence
If any person is unlawfully attacked or threatened with imminent attack, the person attacked and any other person are entitled to ward off the attack by means that are reasonable in the circumstances.Art. 16
Mitigatory self-defence
1 If a person in defending himself exceeds the limits of self-defence as defined in Article 15 and in doing so commits an offence, the court shall reduce the sentence.2 If a person in defending himself exceeds the limits of self-defence as a result of excusable excitement or panic in reaction to the attack, he does not commit an offence.Art. 17 3. Lawful acts and guilt / Legitimate act in a situation of necessityLegitimate act in a situation of necessity
Any person who carries out an act that carries a criminal penalty in order to save a legal interest of his own or of another from immediate and not otherwise avertable danger, acts lawfully if by doing so he safeguards interests of higher value.
Art. 18 3. Lawful acts and guilt / Mitigatory act in a situation of necessityMitigatory act in a situation of necessity
1 Any person who carries out an act that carries a criminal penalty in order to save himself or another from immediate and not otherwise avertable danger to life or limb, freedom, honour, property or other interests of high value shall receive a reduced penalty if he could reasonably have been expected to abandon the endangered interest.
2 If the person concerned could not have been reasonably expected to abandon the endangered interest, he does not commit an offence.
This chart sums up the different types of weapons and their legal status, in Switzerland:
“Bewilligungspflichtig” means you need a purchasing permit, which is a mere formality. It is automatically granted to any legal resident who has not been condemned for any violent crime.
Prohibited guns are mostly full-auto weapons. Note that it is possible to purchase full-auto weapons by obtaining the status of "collector". To enter this category, you merely have to own at least 5 guns and announce your desire to be officially registered as "collector". This implies the obligation to store your weapons in a special safe, which may be verified by the police.
Most gun owners - even those with large collections - prefer not to register as no one really sees a point in owning full-auto weapons, which are just a good way to expend ammunition really, really fast.
A small number of knives considered "very dangerous" are banned - switchblades, double-edged daggers and the likes. Most knives are legal to own and and carry.
There's an old saying: an armed neighborhood is a polite neighborhood!
If you ever visited Switzerland, you probably noticed that this remains true.