I'm concerned that 02/genie may try and trace me (location). Are there any phones that allow you to stay private

"Mike_B" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In message <[email protected]>, Jon
> <[email protected]> writes
>>[email protected] declared for all the world to hear...
>>> Once again, you say how current punishments are far too lenient without
>>> suggesting what would be, in your opinion, a fair sentence and how we
>>> would manage to implement those sentences.
>>
>>Well it's really quite straightforward. Lengthier prison sentences, and
>>more prisons.
>>
>
> At least its a suggestion. However, the prison population has almost
> doubled since 1990 so the practicalities of continuing to put minor
> criminals in prison for a long time need to be addressed. The fact that
> victims of crime emotionally demand ever longer sentences doesn't give us
> the ability to deliver that (nor indeed does it mean we should).
>
Maybe not enough criminals are being locked up? The prison population might
have to be 100,000,000 to protect the remaining 60,000,000 from crime.

---

› See More: I'm concerned that 02/genie may try and trace me (location). Are there any phones that allow you to stay private

Mike_B <[email protected]> posted

>However, the prison population has almost
>doubled since 1990 so the practicalities of continuing to put minor
>criminals in prison for a long time need to be addressed.

It depends what is meant by "minor". I would 'azard the guess that there
are plenty of people in jail for offences that most of us would regard
as better punished by heavy fines or (as an earlier poster said)
enforced compensation to the victim.

>The fact that
>victims of crime emotionally demand ever longer sentences doesn't give
>us the ability to deliver that (nor indeed does it mean we should).
>

There are plenty of people in jail for crimes that are essentially
victimless. The victims of those crimes won't be demanding longer
sentences.

--
PeteM

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

In message <[email protected]>, Aaron B
<[email protected]> writes
>
>"Mike_B" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> In message <[email protected]>, Jon
>> <[email protected]> writes
>>>[email protected] declared for all the world to hear...
>>>> Once again, you say how current punishments are far too lenient without
>>>> suggesting what would be, in your opinion, a fair sentence and how we
>>>> would manage to implement those sentences.
>>>
>>>Well it's really quite straightforward. Lengthier prison sentences, and
>>>more prisons.
>>>
>>
>> At least its a suggestion. However, the prison population has almost
>> doubled since 1990 so the practicalities of continuing to put minor
>> criminals in prison for a long time need to be addressed. The fact that
>> victims of crime emotionally demand ever longer sentences doesn't give us
>> the ability to deliver that (nor indeed does it mean we should).
>>
>Maybe not enough criminals are being locked up? The prison population might
>have to be 100,000,000 to protect the remaining 60,000,000 from crime.
>
>

Indeed. Or perhaps 159,000,000 to protect the other 1,000,000 from
crime. Perhaps eventually, when we are left with the people that obey
every law on every occasion, the 6 of them will have a very lovely, if
extremely regulated life.
--
Mike_B

Steve Terry <[email protected]> posted
>>
>Isn't Gordy Browns PFI on hospitals, etc irresponsible debt.

It's not "irresponsible debt" as in "debt that won't be paid back". It
will be paid back.

Whether it was a good idea for the Treasury to incur it is doubtful, but
that's another matter entirely.

--
PeteM

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

In message <[email protected]>, Jon
<[email protected]> writes
>[email protected] declared for all the world to hear...
>> Once again, you say how current punishments are far too lenient without
>> suggesting what would be, in your opinion, a fair sentence and how we
>> would manage to implement those sentences.
>
>Well it's really quite straightforward. Lengthier prison sentences, and
>more prisons.

What is the evidence that this will result in lower crime and reduced
re-offending?
>
>> The case we are talking about here is one in which somebody poured paint
>> on a car and was sentenced to detention and community punishment, not a
>> suspended sentence. It seems reasonable to me.
>
>The punishment does not fit the crime. Not even close.

Hmmm. What would you suggest? I assume you are aware of the full details
and have read the reports that were presented to the magistrates for you
to make your assertion.
--
John Boyle

<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]

[snip]

> Yeah but then I can't send 5000 text messages a month for
> 10 uk pounds

Why would anyone need to send 5000 text messages a month..? I struggle to
send 5 a week. Are you a spammer..?

> I just don't want the baliffs coming around & taking my
> flatmates stereo equipment etc.

Then pay the money that you owe..!

Ivor

"Mike_B" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> In message <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] writes
> > On Wed, 28 Feb 2007 15:49:16 GMT, Mike_B
> > <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >
> > > how about re-introducing the
> > > birch,
> >
> > Best thing that could happen in this country today and
> > it would have far better effect than any asbo .
>
> Yes..... I forgot that no matter how outrageous one tries
> to be on here, there'll be some hang 'em and flog 'em
> merchant who'll think its a jolly good idea.

And so it would be for some people..!

Ivor

"Roger Mills" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> In an earlier contribution to this discussion,
> DavidM <[email protected]> wrote:

[snip]

> > I've used a mobile tracking service
> > (www.world-tracker.com), and can say with some
> > confidence that they don't know "more or less" where
> > you are. The best location that it gave for my phone
> > had a calculated accuracy of 1.7km, and was infact 400m
> > away from where I was.
>
>
> I think that's a pretty good definition of "more or less"
> - since it shows that you're in Cambridge (say) and not
> in Scotland!

No, it shows that your *phone* is in Cambridge, not that you are actually
with it, unless of course a call was made to/from the phone in question to
confirm it.

Ivor

In an earlier contribution to this discussion,
Ivor Jones <[email protected]> wrote:

> "Roger Mills" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]
>> In an earlier contribution to this discussion,
>> DavidM <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>>> I've used a mobile tracking service
>>> (www.world-tracker.com), and can say with some
>>> confidence that they don't know "more or less" where
>>> you are. The best location that it gave for my phone
>>> had a calculated accuracy of 1.7km, and was infact 400m
>>> away from where I was.
>>
>>
>> I think that's a pretty good definition of "more or less"
>> - since it shows that you're in Cambridge (say) and not
>> in Scotland!
>
> No, it shows that your *phone* is in Cambridge, not that you are
> actually with it, unless of course a call was made to/from the phone
> in question to confirm it.
>

Well yes, of course. But let's not lose sight of the fact that this thread
is about someone who is concerned that his mobile phone will reveal his
whereabouts so - for the purposes of this particular discussion - it's a
given that the phone and the owner are in the same place.
--
Cheers,
Roger
______
Email address maintained for newsgroup use only, and not regularly
monitored.. Messages sent to it may not be read for several weeks.
PLEASE REPLY TO NEWSGROUP!

"Roger Mills" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> In an earlier contribution to this discussion,
> Ivor Jones <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > "Roger Mills" <[email protected]> wrote in
> > message news:[email protected]
> > > In an earlier contribution to this discussion,
> > > DavidM <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> > > > I've used a mobile tracking service
> > > > (www.world-tracker.com), and can say with some
> > > > confidence that they don't know "more or less" where
> > > > you are. The best location that it gave for my phone
> > > > had a calculated accuracy of 1.7km, and was infact
> > > > 400m away from where I was.
> > >
> > >
> > > I think that's a pretty good definition of "more or
> > > less" - since it shows that you're in Cambridge (say)
> > > and not in Scotland!
> >
> > No, it shows that your *phone* is in Cambridge, not
> > that you are actually with it, unless of course a call
> > was made to/from the phone in question to confirm it.
> >
>
> Well yes, of course. But let's not lose sight of the fact
> that this thread is about someone who is concerned that
> his mobile phone will reveal his whereabouts so - for the
> purposes of this particular discussion - it's a given
> that the phone and the owner are in the same place.

Well then, the OP has an easy solution - give his phone to somebody
else..! Problem solved ;-)


Ivor

In an earlier contribution to this discussion,
Ivor Jones <[email protected]> wrote:

> "Roger Mills" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]
>>>
>>> No, it shows that your *phone* is in Cambridge, not
>>> that you are actually with it, unless of course a call
>>> was made to/from the phone in question to confirm it.
>>>
>>
>> Well yes, of course. But let's not lose sight of the fact
>> that this thread is about someone who is concerned that
>> his mobile phone will reveal his whereabouts so - for the
>> purposes of this particular discussion - it's a given
>> that the phone and the owner are in the same place.
>
> Well then, the OP has an easy solution - give his phone to somebody
> else..! Problem solved ;-)
>

Except that he *needs* his phone for the millions of texts that he is
compelled to send!

Maybe a slight change of lifestyle is indicated? <g>
--
Cheers,
Roger
______
Email address maintained for newsgroup use only, and not regularly
monitored.. Messages sent to it may not be read for several weeks.
PLEASE REPLY TO NEWSGROUP!

"Mike_B" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In message <[email protected]>, Aaron B
> <[email protected]> writes
>>
>>"Mike_B" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:[email protected]...
>>> In message <[email protected]>, Jon
>>> <[email protected]> writes
>>>>[email protected] declared for all the world to hear...
>>>>> Once again, you say how current punishments are far too lenient
>>>>> without
>>>>> suggesting what would be, in your opinion, a fair sentence and how we
>>>>> would manage to implement those sentences.
>>>>
>>>>Well it's really quite straightforward. Lengthier prison sentences, and
>>>>more prisons.
>>>>
>>>
>>> At least its a suggestion. However, the prison population has almost
>>> doubled since 1990 so the practicalities of continuing to put minor
>>> criminals in prison for a long time need to be addressed. The fact that
>>> victims of crime emotionally demand ever longer sentences doesn't give
>>> us
>>> the ability to deliver that (nor indeed does it mean we should).
>>>
>>Maybe not enough criminals are being locked up? The prison population
>>might
>>have to be 100,000,000 to protect the remaining 60,000,000 from crime.
>>
>>
>
> Indeed. Or perhaps 159,000,000 to protect the other 1,000,000 from
> crime. Perhaps eventually, when we are left with the people that obey
> every law on every occasion, the 6 of them will have a very lovely, if
> extremely regulated life.

:-)
LOL!

On Fri, 2 Mar 2007 20:54:49 +0000, PeteM <[email protected]> wrote:

>It's not "irresponsible debt" as in "debt that won't be paid back". It
>will be paid back.

It isn't like that.

The irony is that it's the opposite of what most people aspire to.

People borrow money so that they can buy a house on a mortgage, and
eventually own it outright. We generally see that as a better option
than renting forever,.

PFI takes hospitals and schools that were in public ownership, and
gives them to private contractors who redevelop, renovate (or in the
case of one local school, repaint) the building, then hire it back to
the original owner f0r decades if not forever.

In addition they sting the victims for huge service charges (for
example, it costs £60 to have a patient wheeled from the ward to the
operating theatre at our local hospital, and another £60 to wheel them
back. The porter doing the pushing will be on little more than minimum
wage, but the PFI contractor has the trust over a barrel).

--

Iain
the out-of-date hairydog guide to mobile phones
http://www.hairydog.co.uk/cell1.html
Browse now while stocks last!

[email protected] wrote:

>
> HSBC are the GREEDY MULTINATIONALS who PROFIT from DECENT HARD WORKING
> people such as myself.
>
>
> Are you serious? Who's side are you on here?
>
> They have made a mint from me in UNLAWFUL bank charges. I took a loan
> to cover these bank charges. The interest is crippling me. My life is
> ruined.
>
> Get off your high horse or shut up if you have no useful advice.
>

If you think you have been paying excessive bank charges, hop over to
the 'consumer action group' web site and read the notes.

For what it's worth, I am just about to claim back about £3600 from a
mortgage company - and that's not the full amount.

On Sun, 4 Mar 2007 12:30:46 -0000, Jon <[email protected]>
wrote:

>I'm not a victim of crime but I think longer sentences are the way
>forward.

We're all victims of crime. Even if it only puts up our insurance
premiums.

Longer sentences are the way backwards. People don't commit crimes
because they think "I'll only get three years for this, not nine
years". They assume they won't get caught at all (reasonable
assumption: only a small minority of crimes are cleared up) or they
don't think at all.

Of the criminal that get caught (admittedly a small sub-set of
criminals) it seems that they mostly don't think ahead, which is why
the commit crimes - and why they're caught.

Most crime is extreme selfishness. Sending people to prison teaches
them to be more selfish, not less. It allows them to learn new
criminal skills and make connections with like-minded colleagues.

It is very clear that sending people to prison is neither a deterrent
nor a rehabilitation. It does not prevent offending. It does not help
people build a life for themselves that allows the out of crime.

Countries with harsh punitive prison systems have more crime, not
less.

Prison doesn't work. An uncomfortable fact.

--

Iain
the out-of-date hairydog guide to mobile phones
http://www.hairydog.co.uk/cell1.html
Browse now while stocks last!