10 minutes ago, scottiejohn said:

How many reoffended within a year?

Absolutely no idea, and no idea what it has to do with the discussion. It'll be the same percentage of people who usually reoffend - what's that got to do with anything here?

1 minute ago, josephbloggs said:

Absolutely no idea, and no idea what it has to do with the discussion. It'll be the same percentage of people who usually reoffend - what's that got to do with anything here?

Even if it's the same percentage, it's more crime being committed then there would have been had they not been released early, yes?

3 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

Even if it's the same percentage, it's more crime being committed then there would have been had they not been released early, yes?

Oh dear. Failed maths in school did you?

Say you release 100 people and 20 of them recommit. That is 80 spaces freed.

You would have held all 100 of them then there's no space for people to be put in for new crimes.

1 minute ago, josephbloggs said:

Oh dear. Failed maths in school did you?

Say you release 100 people and 20 of them recommit. That is 80 spaces freed.

You would have held all 100 of them then there's no space for people to be put in for new crimes.

If only 20% are recommitting, why put anyone in jail? Just let them all go.

But I think it's closer to 80% than 20%, so most of the "new" crimes are being committed by reoffenders. So now you have to pay for another trial and pay for jail.

I love the lefty-logic lessons.

3 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

If only 20% are recommitting, why put anyone in jail? Just let them all go.

But I think it's closer to 80% than 20%, so most of the "new" crimes are being committed by reoffenders. So now you have to pay for another trial and pay for jail.

I love the lefty-logic lessons.

80%???

I Googled, it is actually 28% which sounds about right in none-MAGA logic land.

So what's your point again? I forgot.

1 minute ago, josephbloggs said:

80%???

I Googled, it is actually 28% which sounds about right in none-MAGA logic land.

So what's your point again? I forgot.

Sure you did.

how many people released from prison early in the UK reoffend - Google Search

It's just the usual joe blogs juming into a thread and disecting it and dissing anyone that goes against him with his usual " i study the thread crap before i post "

So apparently, 80% of crime in the UK is committed by reoffenders, and the left's solution is to let people out early and pay for more trials, rather that funding more prisons.

Not sure about the UK, but in the US the lawyers are mostly leftists and law enforcement are mostly on the right.

Coincidence?

10 minutes ago, BarraMarra said:

It's just the usual joe blogs juming into a thread and disecting it and dissing anyone that goes against him with his usual " i study the thread crap before i post "

You always get upset when I reply to topics. You never answer questions then you flounce away. Are we at flouncing point now?

10 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

So apparently, 80% of crime in the UK is committed by reoffenders, and the left's solution is to let people out early and pay for more trials, rather that funding more prisons.

No, that is incorrect. The left's solution is to invest in more prisons, but it is a long term solution. £4 billion pounds to build 20,000 more places, and they have even designated prisons as areas of "national importance" so they can bypass local council regulations and get them built quicker. The Tories - right wing - did nothing but sit on their hands and watch the system crumble. Until the 20,000 places are built, early release of low category prisoners is unfortunately the only solution. Some of them (25-28%) will inevitably reoffend and go back inside. The majority won't.

And as for your other post, not only did you fail maths but you don't know how to understand statistics. Try again.

There is a difference between 80% re-offending and 80% of crimes being committed by re-offenders, it could be just 1 committing them all, at least that was what I learnt in basic math

5 minutes ago, JellyBabies said:

There is a difference between 80% re-offending and 80% of crimes being committed by re-offenders, it could be just 1 committing them all, at least that was what I learnt in basic math

Exactly. Yellowtail needs to go back to school.

3 minutes ago, JellyBabies said:

There is a difference between 80% re-offending and 80% of crimes being committed by re-offenders, it could be just 1 committing them all, at least that was what I learnt in basic math

Apparently, per the above, about 42% of people reoffend within 12 months.

But that number is ridiculously low, because it only incudes people convicted. It does not include crimes committed that go unreported, crimes that do not result in a conviction, or crimes that are committed after 12 months.

It only incudes people that are convicted of committing a crime they commit within 12 months of release. So they can rob someone every day for a year, and if they do not get convicted of a crime they commit within 12 months o release, they are not on the list.

I thought this interesting:

4 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

Apparently, per the above, about 42% of people reoffend within 12 months.

But that number is ridiculously low, because it only incudes people convicted. It does not include crimes committed that go unreported, crimes that do not result in a conviction, or crimes that are committed after 12 months.

It only incudes people that are convicted of committing a crime they commit within 12 months of release. So they can rob someone every day for a year, and if they do not get convicted of a crime they commit within 12 months o release, they are not on the list.

I thought this interesting:

Ok so to paraphrase

4 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

But that number is ridiculously low, because it only includes people convicted. It does not include crimes committed that go unreported, So potentially not a crime, that would be like me listing all the women I haven't slept with because I didn't ask, crimes that do not result in a conviction, In English we often refer to these people as not guilty, or crimes that are committed after 12 months. not a timescale relevant to the discussion, by that logic I could commit a crime aged 16, then 70 years later commit another on my death bed

Don't worry I just have a pet annoyance for the abuse of statistics to suit an argument

4 minutes ago, JellyBabies said:

Ok so to paraphrase

Per your logic, if a woman is forcibly raped, and she does not report it, no crime has been committed. Do you stand by that?

And also, by your logic, if someone is murdered, the crime is reported, the killer is never charged, the killer is not guilty of anything. Do you stand by that as well?

1 hour ago, Yellowtail said:

Per your logic, if a woman is forcibly raped, and she does not report it, no crime has been committed. Do you stand by that?

And also, by your logic, if someone is murdered, the crime is reported, the killer is never charged, the killer is not guilty of anything. Do you stand by that as well?

1 hour ago, Yellowtail said:

Per your logic, if a woman is forcibly raped, and she does not report it, no crime has been committed. Do you stand by that?

And also, by your logic, if someone is murdered, the crime is reported, the killer is never charged, the killer is not guilty of anything. Do you stand by that as well?

1 hour ago, Yellowtail said:

Per your logic, if a woman is forcibly raped, and she does not report it, no crime has been committed. Do you stand by that?

And also, by your logic, if someone is murdered, the crime is reported, the killer is never charged, the killer is not guilty of anything. Do you stand by that as well?

How dare you accuse me of condoning rape, this is unacceptable, I never mentioned it and it shows your desperation to prove your point by going so low

as for your next point I come from a country that respects the rule of law, innocent until proven guilty

you seem to think people should be found guilty by your misguided opinion on the law

15 hours ago, JellyBabies said:

How dare you accuse me of condoning rape, this is unacceptable, I never mentioned it and it shows your desperation to prove your point by going so low

How dare you lie about what I have said. I never said not meant to imply that you condone rape. What you said was, that when a crime is not reported, it is not really a crime. If that is not what you meant, please clarify what you meant.

If a woman is forcibly raped, or if someone is robbed or burgled, and they do not report the crime, has a crime been committed or not?

15 hours ago, JellyBabies said:

as for your next point I come from a country that respects the rule of law, innocent until proven guilty

As do I, and I support that concept 100%

15 hours ago, JellyBabies said:

you seem to think people should be found guilty by your misguided opinion on the law

Now you are making things up a pretending I've said something I haven't. This is a typical tactic of the left.

What I said was: Apparently, per the above, about 42% of people reoffend within 12 months. But that number is ridiculously low, because it only incudes people convicted. It does not include crimes committed that go unreported, crimes that do not result in a conviction, or crimes that are committed after 12 months. It only incudes people that are convicted of committing a crime they commit within 12 months of release. So they can rob someone every day for a year, and if they do not get convicted of a crime they commit within 12 months o release, they are not on the list.

Nothing claiming people should be found guilty for crimes they have not committed, you made that up, and you should apologize.

Apparently, less than 10% of crimes in the UK results in a charge or summons, much less a conviction. So more than 10 times as many crimes as convictions.

9 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

How dare you lie about what I have said. I never said not meant to imply that you condone rape. What you said was, that when a crime is not reported, it is not really a crime. If that is not what you meant, please clarify what you meant.

If a woman is forcibly raped, or if someone is robbed or burgled, and they do not report the crime, has a crime been committed or not?

As do I, and I support that concept 100%

Now you are making things up a pretending I've said something I haven't. This is a typical tactic of the left.

What I said was: Apparently, per the above, about 42% of people reoffend within 12 months. But that number is ridiculously low, because it only incudes people convicted. It does not include crimes committed that go unreported, crimes that do not result in a conviction, or crimes that are committed after 12 months. It only incudes people that are convicted of committing a crime they commit within 12 months of release. So they can rob someone every day for a year, and if they do not get convicted of a crime they commit within 12 months o release, they are not on the list.

Nothing claiming people should be found guilty for crimes they have not committed, you made that up, and you should apologize.

Apparently, less than 10% of crimes in the UK results in a charge or summons, much less a conviction. So more than 10 times as many crimes as convictions.

You did accuse me of that to quote "Per your logic, if a woman is forcibly raped, and she does not report it, no crime has been committed. Do you stand by that?"

You will obviously go to any lowness to prove your point so I cannot be bothered to waste my time, and also I am right wing not left wing, always with the accusations aren't you

And please don't take this to mean that you have won, you clearly did not, I am just not going to waste my time discussing things with a complete idiot

3 minutes ago, JellyBabies said:

You did accuse me of that to quote "Per your logic, if a woman is forcibly raped, and she does not report it, no crime has been committed. Do you stand by that?"

You will obviously go to any lowness to prove your point so I cannot be bothered to waste my time, and also I am right wing not left wing, always with the accusations aren't you

And please don't take this to mean that you have won, you clearly did not, I am just not going to waste my time discussing things with a complete idiot

I was asking you for clarification, I was not accusing you of anything, but rather than clarify, you lied about what I said, and feigned indignation. Another typical leftist tactic.

But I gave you the benefit of the and asked for clarification a second time, yet here you are lying again and pretending to be so insulted you will no longer respond. Yet another typical leftist tactic.

And because you are not able to have a reasonable, informed discussion, you call me a "complete idiot". Probably the most common leftist tactic of all.

To be clear, I never said you were a leftist, I was only pointing out the leftist tactics you use,

Go with God brother.

10 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

I was asking you for clarification, I was not accusing you of anything, but rather than clarify, you lied about what I said, and feigned indignation. Another typical leftist tactic.

But I gave you the benefit of the and asked for clarification a second time, yet here you are lying again and pretending to be so insulted you will no longer respond. Yet another typical leftist tactic.

And because you are not able to have a reasonable, informed discussion, you call me a "complete idiot". Probably the most common leftist tactic of all.

To be clear, I never said you were a leftist, I was only pointing out the leftist tactics you use,

Go with God brother.

Once again, I am right wing not left wing you total idiot, you cannot handle anything that goes against your failed principals and anyone who disagrees with you is obviously a communist

the only thing that I can assume is that you are a far left agitator who hides as far right, go back to reading Das Kapital, I am sure its full of wonders for left wing people like you

see, I am right wing, you are not, you are a sad person who hides behind a keyboard

and pointing that someone is using leftist tactics is the same as accusing them of being leftist, or are you too moronic to understand basic English

now go back to your pathetic life

15 minutes ago, JellyBabies said:

Once again, I am right wing not left wing you total idiot, you cannot handle anything that goes against your failed principals and anyone who disagrees with you is obviously a communist

Once again, I never said you were not a right-winger, quit lying comrade.

15 minutes ago, JellyBabies said:

the only thing that I can assume is that you are a far left agitator who hides as far right, go back to reading Das Kapital, I am sure its full of wonders for left wing people like you

You can assume anything you like.

15 minutes ago, JellyBabies said:

see, I am right wing, you are not, you are a sad person who hides behind a keyboard.

Calling people sad and o angry is another leftist tactic.

15 minutes ago, JellyBabies said:

and pointing that someone is using leftist tactics is the same as accusing them of being leftist, or are you too moronic to understand basic English

Oh, more typically leftist name calling, what a shock.

15 minutes ago, JellyBabies said:

now go back to your pathetic life

Another insult. Anything to avoid supporting your inane position.

You being all MAGA and whatnot, I am surprised you use all these leftist tactics.

Hey, I thought you were not going to respond anymore, what happened brother?

You certainly know how to disrupt a thread Yellowtail don't you. Only you bring up MAGA leftest nonsense i started this thread due to our PM always doing a runner when there important issues going on in the UK. Its not about American politics or leftist nonsense if you want to talk about that start a new thread.

52 minutes ago, BarraMarra said:

You certainly know how to disrupt a thread Yellowtail don't you. Only you bring up MAGA leftest nonsense i started this thread due to our PM always doing a runner when there important issues going on in the UK. Its not about American politics or leftist nonsense if you want to talk about that start a new thread.

We were discussing that due to the great statesman Starmer's policies, there is so little crime in the UK, that you need to let the criminals out of jail early, just to keep the courts busy. Nothing about leftists being MAGA.

1 hour ago, Yellowtail said:

We were discussing that due to the great statesman Starmer's policies, there is so little crime in the UK, that you need to let the criminals out of jail early, just to keep the courts busy. Nothing about leftists being MAGA.

Your the one calling members lefties thats why one is disgusted with your post. Instead you attacked a member for disagreeing with you.

13 minutes ago, BarraMarra said:

Your the one calling members lefties thats why one is disgusted with your post.

I did not call him a leftist, I said he used leftist tactics. He wasn't disgusted, he just pretended to be because he (not being a leftist) was unable to formulate a coherent respace. You know how those right-wingers are.

13 minutes ago, BarraMarra said:

Instead you attacked a member for disagreeing with you.

I did not attack him, and I do not know that we disagree. I only asked him for clarification, and he attacked me with a barrage of lies,

2 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

I did not call him a leftist, I said he used leftist tactics. He wasn't disgusted, he just pretended to be because he (not being a leftist) was unable to formulate a coherent respace. You know how those right-wingers are.

I did not attack him, and I do not know that we disagree. I only asked him for clarification, and hwhy e attacked me with a barrage of lies,

why do you need to post this if not to wind up a member and why call him comrade ?

Once again, I never said you were not a right-winger, quit lying comrade.

2 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

I did not call him a leftist, I said he used leftist tactics. He wasn't disgusted, he just pretended to be because he (not being a leftist) was unable to formulate a coherent respace. You know how those right-wingers are.

I did not attack him, and I do not know that we disagree. I only asked him for clarification, and he attacked me with a barrage of lies,

13 hours ago, BarraMarra said:

why do you need to post this if not to wind up a member and why call him comrade ?

Once again, I never said you were not a right-winger, quit lying comrade.

Where did I say I did not want to wind him up? I love winding up liars.

13 hours ago, BarraMarra said:

why do you need to post this if not to wind up a member and why call him comrade ?

Once again, I never said you were not a right-winger, quit lying comrade.

Oh, and I love winding up leftists as well, but I did not want to say that for fear I would be accused of calling him a leftist. He is a right-winger that hates Trump, loves Starmer and is soft on crime.