Thursday, March 18, 2010

The criminal class has society over a barrel

The criminal class has society over a barrel. Look at the news coverage.

On Tuesday night in Hamilton two young women attempted to rob a family a home. The father acted to prevent them and eventually neighbours became involved. The police say:

"Here we have neighbours looking out for each other resulting in the arrest of the woman, which is to be commended, but we also have a homeowner suffering a stab wound trying to defend his property in what could have been very tragic circumstances.

"We would prefer people capture details and descriptions rather than place themselves at risk. If at all possible, call 111 and let us respond to the problem."


In other words, let them rob you.

Then up the road in Huntly business owners are sick and tired of increasing property crime and theft. They met with their local MP to express their understandable unhappiness;

But Huntly Community Board chairman Frank McInally, who is a strong advocate for the installation of security cameras, yesterday told the Times that most retailers were "their own worst enemies".

"They won't put their hand in their own pockets to contribute towards the cameras," he said.

"You hit them up for $1000 each for cameras and they don't want to know about. But they're happy to talk about increased insurance premiums. "They talk a lot, but will do absolutely nothing off their own bat."


So again the message sent to thieves is, do your worst. Why the hell should small business owners be coughing up for street security when they already pay their rates and taxes for a reasonable level of law enforcement?

But worse than any of this is the fact that we are forced to support the criminal class through a benefit system that has gone haywire; is bereft of a moral compass.

BIG RISE IN BENEFICIARIES GOING TO PRISON

Thursday, March 18, 2010

Figures released under the Official Information Act show there has been a sharp increase in the number of people who have had their benefits cancelled because they went to prison.

"In 2009 4,192 people had their benefit cancelled because they were going to prison. That is 37 percent up on the 2008 figure, and 47 percent up on the 2007 figure," according to welfare commentator Lindsay Mitchell.

"58 percent were Maori, 89 percent male and 47 percent came off a sickness or invalid's benefit."

"468 parents or caregivers also left the DPB to go to prison. "

"Most criminals break the law many times before they are incarcerated. No doubt there are thousands more people who are serving community sentences or home detention while continuing to receive welfare. Additionally 3,496 people were granted a benefit last year on release from prison."

"This situation rather puts paid to the idea that benefits discourage crime by providing people with a living income."

"The Prime Minister was correct when earlier this year he described New Zealand's welfare rolls as out of control. Welfare was not designed to aid and abet thousands of criminals. "



So we are damned if we do, and damned if we don't. I am rather starting to prefer the idea of damned if we don't.

11 comments:

JCUKNZ's blog said...

Trouble is you don't know if the person with the knife is going to just threaten you or intends to have a 'bit of fun' cutting you up. Personally I keep my door locked and windows closed to avoid offering the temptation. I have been burgled once when an opening in the new house I was building was simply covered with building paper. Even when I lived with my family we kept the doors locked most of the time. Just don't give the crims the opportunity ... that's common sense.

Anonymous said...

It's pretty clear that the welfare system really is part of the criminal justice system. Both have the same problem - taxpayers end up feed, clothing, and housing crims and their families

The solutions are clear:
* don't treat crims or bludgers as citizens
* zero welfare for 'em
* charge prisoners for food & board & security.

those who can't pay can obviously contribute nothing to society - so as they are not citizens, society need contribute nothing to them, expect
perhaps, cremation expenses from a public health perspective.

baxter said...

If the householder had done as the Police Commander had suggested it is likely that the offenders would not have been apprehended and may have gone on to commit further offences. It was the action of the house owner and the commotion raised by his actions that enable the offenders to be detained at the scene.

Anonymous said...

Last year my neighbour was assualted and robbed by members of the Mongrel Mob who told him if he went to the police they would come and rape his wife and children and burn down his house.

My neighbour went to the police (good for him) and suggested if his family were threatened he would shoot them. My neighbour a keen hunter,then had his firearms removed by the police and he was told if he made any more threats of a violent nature he ran the risk of being arrested.

Dirk

Anonymous said...

I mean shoot the offenders not the family...

Its 5 0clock and the gin is flowing...........

Dirk

Anonymous said...

My neighbour a keen hunter,then had his firearms removed by the police

Clearly you neighbour was not a labour voter.

Really there is no substitute for personal responsibility. The best suggestion is of course Whale's - hunt down the local mongrel mob, and when the police catch up with you, say it was for the Greater Good"

Unlike the fucking hippies at least this time you'd be right!

Anonymous said...

I mean shoot the offenders not the family...


Duh. Shoot the offenders and the offenders' families

Anonymous said...

Trouble is you don't know if the person with the knife is going to just threaten you or intends to have a 'bit of fun' cutting you up

Who cares. This isn't a "person with a knife" - it's a bludging crim.

It should be your right, duty, and responsibility to take them out as soon as possible (and, given Lindsay's latest figures, their bludging family too).

JCUKNZ's blog said...

Anon 5.14 You mis-understand my stance. If you are in doubt and have the ability then action in preferable to the passive response the police advocate ... but sadly you run the risk of prosecution. So maybe it is better to get stabbed and die and be done with.

But I will continue to take what I consider sensible security measures to try and avoid home invasion.

Paul B said...

Wow Lindsay, I've been reading your posts for a while but this is the first time I've scanned the comments.

Is your comments section usually so full of murderous intent? Is this something you encourage?

You have people here advocating the slaughter of the family members of suspected criminals.

Do you intend to leave this sort of material here? It doesn't reflect well on you.

Lindsay said...

Paul B, I think are one or two nutters responsible. For a long time I have resisted moderation but the time when I turn it on is probably fast approaching. I am loath to discourage comments. But the fact that I do not delete comments does not reflect approval of them or lack of distaste for them.