Blimey, that was a pile up!
in [UK Motorcycles]
|
Prev: Am I getting older ...
Next: Top Gear
From: Hog on 3 Aug 2010 07:38 Ace wrote: > On Tue, 3 Aug 2010 10:34:20 +0100, "Hog" > <sm911SPAM(a)CHIPShotmail.co.uk> wrote: > >> It has also been addressed in the House of Commons if you want to >> search Hansard but my recollection is that over 35% of *all* women >> prosecuted for an offence were charged with TV licencing evasion. >> Fill yer boots on that statistic. > > "95% of all statistics are made up on the spot." Posting the above as > 'proof' is laughable. That was my recollection of Hansard not a stat made up on the spot. If anyone is interested let *them* look it all up. I'm not because the current system is fucked up regardless. -- Hog
From: Veggie Dave on 3 Aug 2010 07:39 Krusty <dontwantany(a)nowhere.invalid> wrote the following literary masterpiece: >They can only prosecute if they >physically see a TV in your house, or you admit to having one. Not quite true. They can only prosecute if they can prove you have a TV that can receive broadcasts. You don't need a licence to have a TV. -- Veggie Dave http://www.iq18films.co.uk "To assert that the earth revolves around the sun is as erroneous as to claim that Jesus was not born of a virgin." Cardinal Bellarmine
From: Hog on 3 Aug 2010 07:44 wessie wrote: > "Hog" <sm911SPAM(a)CHIPShotmail.co.uk> wrote in > news:4c57e29f$0$12161$fa0fcedb(a)news.zen.co.uk: > >> boots wrote: >>> On Mon, 2 Aug 2010 23:30:33 +0000 (UTC) in uk.rec.motorcycles, >>> SIRPip says: >>> >>>> Hog wrote: >>>> >>>>> Champ wrote: >>>>>> On Mon, 2 Aug 2010 14:06:17 +0100, "Hog" >>>>>> <sm911SPAM(a)CHIPShotmail.co.uk> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> The licence fee is patently is not a good idea. It puts >>>>>>> excessive numbers of people in Court and in jail for non >>>>>>> payment of fines. Not to mention the costs of reminders and >>>>>>> enforcement. >>>>>> >>>>>> It's a terrible system. But, for raising money to fund TV >>>>>> production, it's better than all the alternatives. >>>>> >>>>> But the consequences are unacceptable. >>>>> Non payment of TV licence fines is the largest group of single >>>>> parent females in jail. >>>> >>>> Post proof of that, please. >>> >>> Might be difficult. >> >> You would start here: >> http://bjc.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/40/3/414 >> an essay called Gender, Crime Poverty in England & Wales >> >> It made some headlines early in this year IIRC >> >> It has also been addressed in the House of Commons if you want to >> search Hansard but my recollection is that over 35% of *all* women >> prosecuted for an offence were charged with TV licencing evasion. >> Fill yer boots on that statistic. >> > > so you are backing up your assertion with an article based on a 16 > year old set of data? > > As most women have sentences shorter than 6 months, don't you think it > might be a little out of date? > > According to recent Bromley Briefings, in 2008 the most common resean > for incarceration for a female prisoner was a drug related offence. In > 2006 it was theft/handling stolen goods. From this, it is evident that > making any sort of generalisation without a time reference and that > most crime reports talk about trends rather than absolutes. > > There doesn't appear to be any statistic that separates single mothers > from the parent category. > > http://www.womeninprison.org.uk/statistics.php You might tell me that the situation has changed, if you can be bothered looking up the references, but stating that a particular source doesn't split out single parents is worthless. What is correct is that there *was* considerable debate about the numbers of women incarcerated for non payment of Mag. Court fines relating to TV licences and concern about the percentage of a certain group in jail. Obviously it isn't going to be as a percentage of the total prison population, I guess that's drug related offenders in most Western countries. -- Hog
From: Krusty on 3 Aug 2010 07:45 Veggie Dave wrote: > Krusty <dontwantany(a)nowhere.invalid> wrote the following literary > masterpiece: > > They can only prosecute if they > > physically see a TV in your house, or you admit to having one. > > Not quite true. They can only prosecute if they can prove you have a > TV that can receive broadcasts. You don't need a licence to have a TV. Well yeah, that's taken as read. -- Krusty Raptor 1000 MV 750 Senna Tiger 955i Tiger 885 Fantic Hiro 250
From: Ace on 3 Aug 2010 08:05
On Tue, 3 Aug 2010 12:44:35 +0100, "Hog" <sm911SPAM(a)CHIPShotmail.co.uk> wrote: >What is correct is that there *was* >considerable debate about the numbers of women incarcerated for non payment >of Mag. Court fines relating to TV licences and concern about the percentage >of a certain group in jail. If only you'd presented it in that way in the first place, rather than trying to turn it into a Daily Mail headline. |