SIGN UP

Yet another killing

Avatar Image
anotheoldgit | 11:17 Sun 09th May 2010 | News
12 Answers
http://news.bbc.co.uk...nd/london/8670650.stm

Yet another teenager killed on London's streets.

The 3 leaders are battling to see who's bed they climb into, wouldn't it be better if their energies were spent trying to make it more safe for us to sleep in our beds?

Answers

1 to 12 of 12rss feed

Best Answer

No best answer has yet been selected by anotheoldgit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.

For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
AOG

The three leaders of the main political parties need to establish how to to move forward because none has a working majority to form a government.

I assume that they trust the police to investigate this murder.
Question Author
sp1814

Yes it is the police's duty to investigate these murders, but it is also the politicians duty to bring into force measures to reduce such crimes, even though they would wish to shy from doing so, in case it upsets the equilibria.
"even though they would wish to shy from doing so, in case it upsets the equilibria. "

What exactly do you mean here? It just sounds a bit conspiracy theoryish.
Question Author
Not in the least conspiratorial, increased stop and search and zero tolerance, targeted at mainly black teenagers, since they seem to be the prime instigators of these crimes.
-- answer removed --
"it is also the politicians duty to bring into force measures to reduce such crimes, even though they would wish to shy from doing so, in case it upsets the equilibria. "

I still don't understand this sentence. You seem to be saying that politicians deliberately avoid taking crime-reducing measures for some... reason... or something. On the surface of it, that sounds a little bit conspiracy theory-ish.
AOG

The leaders of the three main parties are extremely busy right now. They cannot be expected to drop what they're doing (establishing the new Government to lead the country for the next half decade), because of a murder.

Whilst they are the process of thrashing out a deal, the police will investigate the crime.

Once a new Government is in place, them it will be down to THAT team to tackle youth crime, the economy, NHS funding, withdrawal from Iraq, transport infrastructure, immigration policy, pension shortfalls and everything else a Goverment has to deal with.

Not sure why you posted the question at this time.
Exactly how many equilibria are we talking about here...?
Question Author
kromovaracun

/// What exactly do you mean here? It just sounds a bit conspiracy theoryish ///

I took the trouble to answer your question, although it contained nothing to warrant it, but for some reason it has been removed,

Obviously it was too near the truth, for some to prefer the answer not to be to be published.
I saw your answer, AOG, and I still didn't understand it (though I agree I'm not sure why it's been removed). As far as I can remember/could tell, you gave some examples of some policies - 'increased stop-and-search' and targeting/focus on relevant ethnic groups. I'm guessing you meant they were examples of policies that should be in place, but that wasn't really what I was asking.

Either way, I still don't understand what it was you were originally saying...
Question Author
I don't know of any other way that I can explain it to you.

Except to say, just as the military have certain rules of combat thrust upon them by the politicians, the police service also have to walk on egg shells, when dealing with certain crimes committed by certain sections of the community.
Okay, I'll explain my confusion again.

I don't understand what exactly you're getting at here:

" it is also the politicians duty to bring into force measures to reduce such crimes, even though they would wish to shy from doing so, in case it upsets the equilibria. "

The source of my confusion is the part where you say "they would wish to shy from doing so, in case it upsets the equilibria", because what you're saying is that politicians deliberately avoid bringing in measures that you think will reduce crime, and I don't understand the motives you're attributing to them. The reason I don't is because it seems a bit crazy.

I think you might have seen my question as something like 'what anti-crime measures do you have in mind?'

1 to 12 of 12rss feed

Do you know the answer?

Yet another killing

Answer Question >>