Britain is soft on crime and the Criminals know it. I have been stirred to write something here after seeing the case of an acid attack victim, Andreas Christopheros, who was basically given a life sentence because of his injuries that he received from the callous actions of David Phillips who was originally given a Life Sentence which was scaled down to 16 yrs ( so out on the streets after 8 yrs) because the Courts did not consider him a Dangerous Man. Well how do they class what is a dangerous man then? I would say of any person willing and able to throw acid into the face of another is a very dangerous individual from whom the public need protecting. This was not the actions of a reasonable human being. Reducing the sentence of Phillips is an outrage and an affront to Justice!
Mr Christopheros has been given a life sentence by this man so it was right that Phillips received the same like for like Life Sentence for the perpetration of this crime.
Over a series of post I will be looking at the failing British Judicial System in Britain to find out why it is not working and why the criminals are laughing at the sentences that they receive. These punishments are no deterrent and serve only to perpetuate criminal activities in today’s Britain. I used to work for the Probation Service so I know what a fiasco and joke it is and what takes place behind their closed doors. I will give you my insights into this and show why the current guidelines on sentencing are failing the public and why the Probation Service is failing to enforce the ideas behind the court sentencing. We will look at why the Conservative Governments are not taking this issue seriously and paying it only lip service. We will go on to look at Youth Crime and who should be made responsible and how this issue can be tackled. I will look at why Criminals need to serve the full term for offences and not to be released at the halfway point of their sentence. We will look at these early release plans in detail and see who actually benefits from these arrangements and why they have been introduced mainly to stop over-crowding in prisons. Finally I will be arguing and petitioning that we need to re-introduce the Death Penalty for very serious crimes.
Here is a copy of the details from a recent complaint email that I sent to the Hull City Council regarding the improvisation of a new pedestrian crossing system in Newland Avenue in Hull.
hello – I a writing in to complain about an issue in relation to the new road surfacing that is taking place on Newland Ave. In particular I am concerned about the markings made on the road on Newland Ave. There seems to have been an attempt to put in new crossing points for pedestrians. However there does not appear to be any legal precedent in the Highway Code 2007 for these markings to appear. Drivers are confused, as these are not pedestrian crossings nor pedestrian rights of way and there is no evidence of such crossings or road markings in the Highway Code I believe that this matter of confusion is therefore putting both pedestrians and drivers in danger because of the confusion. It is already difficult enough with the numerous crossings that do exist and the road furniture that already exists in Newland Avenue without adding to the chaos and confusion. We already have people walking out into the road when in drink and we certainly do not need any more hazards of the Council’s creation. Please could you respond with how these markings are documented in the Highway Code with reference to the exact numbered item in the Code where it mentions this type of crossing. Otherwise I suggest that the Council stick to the binding authority and letter of that said Code and refrain from this type of dangerous improvisation by getting rid of these nuisance crossings forthwith before someone gets killed in an accident.
I also sent a link to them to refresh their knowledge in relation to some of the more commonly used types of crossings and road markings available.
I would like to hear from anyone else who has thoughts on this matter
The Hull City Council have still not satisfactorily responded to my complaint and questions as to the legality of these crossings still remains unclear. What the Council did say is that they want me to contact the actual contractor- Wright’s Engineering- to find out for myself. This is simply not good enough since Hull City Council has the ultimate responsibility to oversee the work of any contractor that it hires to do work on it’s behalf to make sure that it fits and complies with the legal framework. So they have basically tried to dodge the question by asking me to find out the answer myself to something that they should already know before the work was passed off as completed. This obviously has not been done in this case and the Council is therefore negligent in it’s responsibilities in this area. You would think that on works of such importance to public safety that they would be more careful – they may be putting lives at risk.