Knife crime, again.

Watching a piece on Sky News about Knife crime, a few things I found interesting.

The Home Secretary Jacqui Smith has said that even carry a knife constitutes a crime, we are 3 times more likely to go to court because of this and 3 times more likely to be sent to prison and for longer sentences.

15 teenagers this year in London alone have been killed by knife crime. It is a lot, but I think media sensationalism plays a part. If you buy the Sun every day, you can be guaranteed to see a piece on somebody who had died, or something shocking about our treasured armed forces and our "great" country, or even something about the Royal Family or Pete Doherty and Any Winehouse.

Having said that, I don't think the Sun and the tabloids are fair journalistic commentaries on the News, so we should ignore that (afterall, it is a pathetic excuse for news!). Though the media may have sensationalised a string of knife crimes, the result is still there. I don't see any epidemic of danger on the streets on the streets anymore than there ever was.

What's more, three prisoners on Sky News related to knife crime were given different sentences, 3 years, 4 years and 7 years. For me, it doesn't matter a great deal, if somebody is hurt or killed because someone takes unnecessary force or has motive/intent, they should be put away for a minimum time for their crimes. 3 years, even if it is due to a robbery is not enough. Punishments for crimes should be a detterant. Long sentences and preferably a suitable minimum should be done, but I'm not so sure people should just be 'let' out because they have completed a sentence. Prison should be about punishment and rehabilitation for reintegration into society.

Am I crazy, or is there a real danger of knife crime in particularly urban areas? Are we really in more danger now on the streets than we were ten years ago?

Right to bear arms....

Get Your Gun before Obama does!

Read this here - I found the picture amusing!

With the anniversary of 4th July being today, and the blog I did the other day on street crime (ok it was in the UK, but still)...

How can people be so worried about things on the streets and still want to have guns or the "right to bear arms"?

Surely thats a bit contradictory. I think so.

Blair's back!...

But its not Tony. It's Cherie.

She was also on telly last night, same time as the 9/11 documentary so I watched that instead. But I did catch some of it, which focused on knife crime.

An ex-con turned goody (maybe he's been prescribed Ritalin, or something?) did suggest the excellent point that we should put people away who re-engineer guns and sell them, put them away for 40 years as a precedent.

As a Labour member, I really can't see the logic in Cherie bringing up the point she makes that Tony failed to get 'tough on crime', at a time when Labour has lost a lot of respect among voters and needs most of all people to rally.

Lastly, what is this constant fear of people getting stabbed, attacked, raped etc.? People bring this up to me time and time again, worried to let their kids out and all sorts. Its mad. I'm not worried about the streets, I'm aware of the dangers but theres clearly no-go areas.

I might lack common sense, but I'm not stupid like that to leave myself open to opportunity like that. Or maybe I am blind.

Is it just me? or is Cherie right? Now that she's out of the house with the black door (No.10) maybe she should concentrate on her job, rather than going all political. Its not good for politics and heaven help us if the Conservatives get in (LibDems aren't that bad but lets face it, they got no hope). And am I the only one who sees striking similiarities with Cherie and Hilary Clinton (pre-Senator years)?

Loose Change... 9/11: A Conspiracy?

Very popular on the Internet we're told, these conspiracies on 9/11. The programme on BBC2 has led me to believe that there was no conspiracy before 9/11, even if the BBC are not always taken to be fair in their investigations.

I won't get into criticism over BBC programming, but the answer to any possible conspiracy theories was easy to answer - It was terrorists under Bin Laden.

The writer of the X-Files said it best - and I would probably go any further than him to say JFK is another example that extraordinary incidents demand from the general public, extraordinary answers. The truth hurts, as the saying goes.

Likewise, extraordinary questions like the 'Existence of God' in some people's eyes (Dawkins), require 'extraordinary' answers.

That is something entirely different I'm aware, but sometimes things are not always as they should be, such as the size of craters at the Pentagon, etc. It has been shown that the evidence is accounted for.

Like the BBC says, and the director of Loose Changes says is one of the possibilities - that there is a conspiracy, AFTER 9/11 if not before. It is very plausible. Motive for the government is securing long term oil interest - opportunity was 9/11 and 'Muslim hijackers' - but yet, the consequences have gone horribly wrong in Iraq that Bush has a tainted legacy (if any).

Personally, being a Republican (UK meaning not US!) I tend to believe in the system of democracy and have faith in it. It can't be ignored that Bush decided to resort to war, in the words of Josiah Bartlet in West Wing, "by the fury of God's own thunder", especially given his widely known fundamentalist neo-conservative views. I don't think he was a partipant in the attacks, but his intelligence was certainly distorted, if not by personal motives then by typical Republican (American meaning) nationalistic feeling generated by the attacks.

Finally through watching the programme, the 'Loose Change' documentary mentioned above, is given below. Its long, an hour or so. I've not watched it yet, but it certainly is intriguing.