Peter Mcverrys support for syringe criminal.

A Tyrant Named Miltiades!

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

The only statistics I've been able to get a hold of on crime in early 20th century ireland indicates that it was a much more violent place, at least in urban centres. At the turn of the 20th century, Ireland had a higher murder rate than it has today. No statistics were collected in relation to domestic violence but can we even begin to imagine how bad it was? Alcoholism was practically an epidemic, and street brawls, or 'riots' seem incredibly common based on newspaper reports of the times. It may be an exaggeration to say that Dublin's Monto was the prostitution capital of Europe, but prostitution was certainly rampant there, and seems to have happened in plain sight.

There was recently an excellent radio documentary about what a dangerous places the Tenements were, which I can't find a working link for, but I did come across this article on 'Animal Gangs' in places like Dublin's North Inner City.

https://www.independent.ie/lifestyle/the-animals-who-prowled-1930s-dublin-26878497.html

I suspect a lot of elderly people look back on their own childhood experiences with rose-tinted glasses, either because they were genuinely sheltered from crime, or because it's human nature to dwell more heavily on the problems of the present than the past.

Either way, as a yardstick, if I were a youngfella walking the streets of the North Inner City back then, I don't think I'd feel particularly safe. I certainly wouldn't display in public that era's equivalent of an iPhone (a pocket book?). Whereas these days, for all the doom, when I lived in the city centre recently, I used to go jogging up around Summer hill or down Townsend Street, which supposedly are places of great mortal and moral danger today.

I used to sit by the Custom House or the Docks at night and smoke fags and think about the world and boards.ie and Joe Duffy and what's it all about. I wouldn't have been so blasé about my surroundings during the 1930s.

My father was born in 1922, his grandfather owned a large proportion of the tenements of the inner city. The grandfather’s mother started the business when her own husband, a shopkeeper, died aged 33 from severe alcoholism. She had to rely on her wits to feed the family and saw an opportunity in “vacant possession” and built up an empire of property. The family acquired lots of buildings and owned Ierne Ballroom and lots of stores etc. my Dad’s own father hated the business of collecting rents from poor people, and the business fell apart. My father, a gentle sort of man, used to be sent as a teenager to do a little of this rent collecting in the inner city and although he didn’t approve of it and turned towards doing work for V de P instead, he always told me it was not at all unsafe, not the way he said it had gone when I was pulled down onto the street at the Five Lamps crossing the road, after which I learned to carry anything I valued in a dirty looking bin bag as the latter was what was left in my hand (ironically I had transferred all my stuff of worth into it when going through the area!).

My mother’s father vouched to remain a lifelong teetotaller after seeing so many extremely drunken people attend Glasnevin Cemetery during funerals (not his abstemious family, but generally speaking) and he said the behaviour and conduct was appalling around Phibsboro where so many funeral goers would gather. Things improved in that respect during my mother’s growing up 1920 onwards.

El_Duderino 09

Sam Quentin wrote: »

Jaysizzzzzz I don't know,.just think he shuda got more than 3 years inside.
How many years do you think he should spend in prison?

I don’t know. I didn’t claim to know. If you’re claiming you know what’s appropriate - 7 years with 2 suspended- then it should be easy to say how you came to that conclusion.

It’s honest of you to say you don’t know, but then why would you suggest a sentence if you don’t know why you suggested it?

Odhinn

Hal3000 wrote: »

You could argue that countries such as China have a lower violent crime rate because of the severity of sentences - death penalty...

Unfortunately the Chinese have been known to take statistics they don't like and change them. The US has harsher sentencing, the death penalty in many places, yet still has a higher rate of crime.

El_Duderino 09

Hal3000 wrote: »

Maybe some day we can all join hands in this wonderful social uptopia of yours. They've had decades to figure this stuff out. They can't !!

Chortle chortle chortle. If you think what I’ve suggested in that post is what we’ve been doing for decades, then you either don’t understand what was in the post or you don’t have a clue about what we’ve been doing for the last few decades.

I’m not sure if you’re being serious or not.

Trouble about prison is that they meet their own type inside and reinforce their own criminality. Yes, punishment should never be light, but I think they should be both made work physically to redress their crime as well as possible, to get educated for future employment and fulfillment, and educated to develop pride and dignity, and respect the dignity of everybody else. I think this is kind of what they do in likes of Norway. Punishment needs to reinforce good behaviour, not bad, even if we feel they deserve the worst treatment.

begbysback

Hal3000 wrote: »

You could argue that countries such as China have a lower violent crime rate because of the severity of sentences - death penalty...

You could also argue that China prevents the flow of freedom of information, and does this for its own governmental benefits - therefore any statistical reports originating from the same source can be taken with a pinch of salt

Odhinn

Odhinn wrote: »

Unfortunately the Chinese have been known to take statistics they don't like and change them. The US has harsher sentencing, the death penalty in many places, yet still has a higher rate of crime.

The USA has in addition to our drugs, needles and knives, the freely available GUN, which can be used to inflict death and misery, with little thought and effort, from quite some distance from the victims.

I think too, that countries with the Gun in the mixture, have not only criminally minded people who resort to their use, but people with mental health issues and naturally fiery temperaments (like myself!) who could pick up, in s moment of pique, a freely available nearby gun and turn on self and/or others. I remember a neighbour (who was from rural Ireland) who was a good friend of my father, used to keep the old family shotgun in case a violent burglar ever entered the house. My Dad convinced him to get rid of it as he suffered from occasional depression and was most likely to turn it on himself as well as risking ending up in jail in the event of using it during such a break-in, which never happened. The only burglar at that time on our road ended up unconscious with a chair over his head, thrown down by a little old lady from the upstairs landing.

[Deleted User]

[Deleted User] wrote: »

The USA has in addition to our drugs, needles and knives, the freely available GUN, which can be used to inflict death and misery, with little thought and effort, from quite some distance from the victims.

Actually, I often think about how easy it is to own a gun in ireland. My siblings and I got our certs (allowing us to go shoot vermin, usually rats or crows) when we were about 14 or 15 and then could own a gun from the age of 16. I'm pretty sure that hasn't changed.

The process sounds more arduous than it actually was. It was easier to get a full gun licence than it was to apply to fill out the UCAS form (college applications) at the same time, although maybe that's because we lived on a farm.

The only big difference here is that there's a great carefulness about guns ingrained in people. You'd never go into your own yard without breaking your gun. Well you might, but someone would give you a bollocking.

Anyway, that's a bit of a tangent, but our lack of gun violence seems more cultural than anything else. I once read an article saying we have the strictest gun laws in Europe -- that doesn't bode well for Europe, if so.

(PS I no longer have a gun and I'm sorry for shooting vermin, don't come at me!)

Galwayguy35

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

I think most of us are. But...


... Every adult knows that monsters don't exist.

An alarmingly high number of addicts are themselves victims of physical or sexual abuse. For some reason, when we hear of a violent attack, we'd have nothing but sympathy to hear that the victim became a nervous wreck who couldn't leave the house, and maybe developed an addiction.

But in the same breath, we lack sympathy for an addict who probably also was a victim of some kind of physical or sexual violence, and probably had a miserable childhood. This is somewhat natural, but it's cognitive dissonance.

There are some violent criminals who can be fairly described as bad people, out and out, with no logical explanation for their addictions. But those people are needles in one big dysfunctional haystack.

And a lot of people who suffer abuse go on to be decent productive members of society.

Having a bad childhood is no excuse for hurting innocent people just going about their daily lives.

You might be singing from a different hymn sheet if some addict stuck a dirty needle in your neck if you didn't give him your phone and money.

Galwayguy35

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

And a lot of people who suffer abuse go on to be decent productive members of society.

Having a bad childhood is no excuse for hurting innocent people just going about their daily lives.

You might be singing from a different hymn sheet if some addict stuck a dirty needle in your neck if you didn't give him your phone and money.

I'd sooner hand him my phone and my wallet than any kind of reasoning skills. The evidence is crystal clear that high social-supports are associated with the safest countries in the world.

There's nothing to gain from mounting a high horse and declaring what human beings 'should' be like. We have to look at crime at a population level across various countries and ask "What works?" and "What doesn't work?"

Pursuing retribution, poverty, and a lack of social support is a policy that absolutely will result in a lot more victims getting hurt.

the_syco

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

No, monsters don't exist.

I don't know why some think it's helpful to dehumanise violent criminals. Maybe it's a primitive hangover that operates to stigmatise an individual. But we have the legal process to make outsiders of them now.

I'm guessing it's easier to think that the monster is not a normal human being. It's also easier to throw a "monster" into the oven.

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

I'd sooner hand him my phone and my wallet than any kind of reasoning skills.

Likewise. I'd get them back easily enough afterwards when I bounce something heavy off their head.

pinkyeye

Does anyone here actually think that if Peter McVerry wasn't around that all the addicts would disappear?

Way I look at it is if he gets 5% of his clientele clean then he's doing good.

I heard a radio interview the other day which stated that the heroin addict population now are much older than in the 80's which is surely a good thing as it suggests that something is working?

Oxter

Perhaps its time to use the same policy as in the Phillippines - the police shoot addicts anf dealers on sight. So far 5,000 killed.

This has promoted a lot of addicts there to detox.

Odhinn

Oxter wrote: »

Perhaps its time to use the same policy as in the Phillippines - the police shoot addicts anf dealers on sight. So far 5,000 killed.

This has promoted a lot of addicts there to detox.

Designating any section of society "fair game" and bereft of the same rights as the rest of us is what resulted in the horrors of the industrial schools and mothers homes in this state, and occassionally genocide in others.

Oxter

Odhinn wrote: »

Designating any section of society "fair game" and bereft of the same rights as the rest of us is what resulted in the horrors of the industrial schools and mothers homes in this state, and occassionally genocide in others.

Victims of crime have rights too.

Anerican systen of 3 convictions and life?
That would stop the repeat offenders.

pinkyeye

pinkyeye wrote: »

Does anyone here actually think that if Peter McVerry wasn't around that all the addicts would disappear?

Way I look at it is if he gets 5% of his clientele clean then he's doing good.

I heard a radio interview the other day which stated that the heroin addict population now are much older than in the 80's which is surely a good thing as it suggests that something is working?

I have heard from a friend working in Dublin 10 area that there are currently generations of drug addicts and n’er do wells who have brought up a current batch of children to be truly antisocial even violent and physically injurious towards adults going about their daily work. Somebody I know lives there too, settled during a long spell of general decency in the area, but it’s not nice for her either as she couldn’t really afford to buy elsewhere. Local teachers can’t really attempt to teach anything as there is zero parental support with very isolated exceptions.

I used to work in Dublin 8/12, where there was a great cross section of classes, religions and races. You had children from “the flats”, and likes of Brian Dobson & family, all living in very close proximity, with the children and parents mixing on many levels, and some very decent schools, with the result that I saw many of the most disadvantaged succeed very well. There is a great cohort of ambitious people, parents eager for their children to achieve, parents taking further education themselves in the many outlets nearby, and a good strong body of”Old Dubliners” in the mix, including the Protestant working class who might have worked in Guinness”. One of the overall Young Scientist winners is in the area.

Odhinn

Oxter wrote: »

Victims of crime have rights too.

Anerican systen of 3 convictions and life?
That would stop the repeat offenders.

It doesn't though. Neither does the death sentence. Humanity is a perverse beast best not analysed through strict logic alone.

Oxter

“The defence also presented a letter from Fr Peter McVerry saying that Reilly was stable and doing well in his drug rehabilitation”



Peter Mcverry in my eyes is a hypocrite who loves the limelight.

Giving a letter in court to support a scumbag who held up a women with a syringe

Can’t stand the man and his self righteous attitude.[/quote

The letter stated facts about the man being in rehab. What is self rightious about that?

McVerry has helped a lot of homeless.
Have you?

Wheeliebin30

Oxter wrote: »

“The defence also presented a letter from Fr Peter McVerry saying that Reilly was stable and doing well in his drug rehabilitation”



Peter Mcverry in my eyes is a hypocrite who loves the limelight.

Giving a letter in court to support a scumbag who held up a women with a syringe

Can’t stand the man and his self righteous attitude.[/quote

The letter stated facts about the man being in rehab. What is self rightious about that?

McVerry has helped a lot of homeless.
Have you?

Yes.

I pay 21k a year in tax which some goes to homeless charities including Mcverrys.

Next question?

Oxter

Wheeliebin30 wrote: »

Yes.

I pay 21k a year in tax which some goes to homeless charities including Mcverrys.

Next question?

Why the vitriolic attack on him?
Psying taxes doesnt count as helping.
Volunteering does

Answer the first question - What is self rightious about the letter stating facts?

Wheeliebin30

Oxter wrote: »

Why the vitriolic attack on him?
Psying taxes doesnt count as helping.
Volunteering does

Erm. Right so.

Peter Mcverrys “trust” and his CEO on 100k a year wouldn’t exist without tax payers money.

Oxter

Wheeliebin30 wrote: »

Erm. Right so.

Peter Mcverrys “trust” and his CEO on 100k a year wouldn’t exist without tax payers money.

Most of their income comes from fundraising

Its not Peter Mcverry's Trust. Its the Peter McVerry Trust. Its a registered chsrity, propetly run. Look at their website.

Yhe CEO is a professional doing a very goid job st at least half his msrket worth.

Why the vitriolic personal attack?

Wheeliebin30

Oxter wrote: »

Most of their income comes from fundraising

Its not Peter Mcverry's Trust. Its the Peter McVerry Trust. Its a registered chsrity, propetly run. Look at their website.

Yhe CEO is a professional doing a very goid job st at least half his msrket worth.

Why the vitriolic personal attack?

Vitriolic personal attack on who?

Wheeliebin30

Wheeliebin30 wrote: »

Yes.

I pay 21k a year in tax which some goes to homeless charities including Mcverrys.

Next question?

Then you pay a total of 4 quid towards McVerry's charities per YEAR.

I want to totally sincerely offer to pay you the princely sum of 4 euro, payable by bank transfer or by cheque, if you will only get down off that bloody pedestal.

That's all I ask. I can see that it's an important 4 quid but please stop acting like you're paying for the charity.

(Edit, it had to be downgraded. I thought you said you pay 41k tax but you pay half that (approx). So it's only about 4 quid, not 8 quid)

pinkyeye

Deleted User wrote: »

I have heard from a friend working in Dublin 10 area that there are currently generations of drug addicts and n’er do wells who have brought up a current batch of children to be truly antisocial even violent and physically injurious towards adults going about their daily work. Somebody I know lives there too, settled during a long spell of general decency in the area, but it’s not nice for her either as she couldn’t really afford to buy elsewhere. Local teachers can’t really attempt to teach anything as there is zero parental support with very isolated exceptions.

I used to work in Dublin 8/12, where there was a great cross section of classes, religions and races. You had children from “the flats”, and likes of Brian Dobson & family, all living in very close proximity, with the children and parents mixing on many levels, and some very decent schools, with the result that I saw many of the most disadvantaged succeed very well. There is a great cohort of ambitious people, parents eager for their children to achieve, parents taking further education themselves in the many outlets nearby, and a good strong body of”Old Dubliners” in the mix, including the Protestant working class who might have worked in Guinness”. One of the overall Young Scientist winners is in the area.

I'm not sure what your point is Cat.

You point out that you worked in Dublin 8/12 and there was a great cross section and yet seem to be trying to say there's no hope for Dublin 10.

Apologies if I'm picking you up wrong, I genuinely don't know what your point is?

corner of hells

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Then you pay a total of 4 quid towards McVerry's charities per YEAR.

I want to totally sincerely offer to pay you the princely sum of 4 euro, payable by bank transfer or by cheque, if you will only get down off that bloody pedestal.

That's all I ask. I can see that it's an important 4 quid but please stop acting like you're paying for the charity.

(Edit, though you said you pay 41k tax. It's only about 4 quid, not 8 quid)

4 euro ?
I work for a homeless charity , I'd like to say I'm eternally grateful for the 4 euro.
Also I'm posting from my yacht in Monaco.

Oxter

Wheeliebin30 wrote: »

Vitriolic personal attack on who?

McVerry

Paying €22k in tax indicates that you are in semi skilled emoloyment with no professional qualifa ion and consumed with jealousy of anyone on a higher salary

corner of hells

corner of hells wrote: »

4 euro ?
I work for a homeless charity , I'd like to say I'm eternally grateful for the 4 euro.
Also I'm posting from my yacht in Monaco.

And I bet McVerry is in the casinos, going mad on his share of yer man's 4 euro.

Just been reading about the Government spending 3 billion on broadband infrastructure that a lot of rural dwellers don't want, and which the state will never own. And people are getting upset about 4 quid.

Wheeliebin30

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Then you pay a total of 4 quid towards McVerry's charities per YEAR.

I want to totally sincerely offer to pay you the princely sum of 4 euro, payable by bank transfer or by cheque, if you will only get down off that bloody pedestal.

That's all I ask. I can see that it's an important 4 quid but please stop acting like you're paying for the charity.

(Edit, it had to be downgraded. I thought you said you pay 41k tax but you pay half that (approx). So it's only about 4 quid, not 8 quid)

And if every tax payer stopped paying the 4 euro where would his trust be?

Absolutely ridiculous point.

I pay 4 euro so I can’t have an opinion.

Wheeliebin30

Oxter wrote: »

McVerry

Paying €22k in tax indicates that you are in semi skilled emoloyment with no professional qualifa ion and consumed with jealousy of anyone on a higher salary

Please edit your posts, I genuinely can’t make out what you’re trying to say.

Probably because I’m semi skilled?

Wheeliebin30

Wheeliebin30 wrote: »

And if every tax payer stopped paying the 4 euro where would his trust be?

Absolutely ridiculous point.

I pay 4 euro so I can’t have an opinion.

That's not the point and you know it. I'm not devaluing the importance of any tax contribution.

The point is that you were the one who raised the issue that you pay a certain amount of tax, which you mentioned. I'm saying it amounts to 4 euro *per year*. Most people wouldn't notice that if they dropped it in the car in one afternoon.

Yet people feel as if McVerry is somehow fleecing them. That's simply not the case.

Sheeps

How can anyone be against PMVT? Are you trolling or what?

Oxter

Wheeliebin30 wrote: »

https://www.thejournal.ie/damien-reilly-courts-syringe-robbery-4623994-May2019/



“The defence also presented a letter from Fr Peter McVerry saying that Reilly was stable and doing well in his drug rehabilitation”



Peter Mcverry in my eyes is a hypocrite who loves the limelight.

Can’t stand the man and his self righteous attitude.

That to me is a vitriolic personal attack.

Wheeliebin30

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

That's not the point and you know it. I'm not devaluing the importance of any tax contribution.

The point is that you were the one who raised the issue that you pay a certain amount of tax, which you mentioned. I'm saying it amounts to 4 euro *per year*. Most people wouldn't notice that if they dropped it in the car in one afternoon.

Yet people feel as if McVerry is somehow fleecing them. That's simply not the case.

But we all pay small amounts of our tax into numerous pots to keep society going.

Just because it’s 4 euro has no relevance.

Does that mean we can’t have an opinion on anything where our money goes?

I don’t get this logic at all sorry.

Wheeliebin30

Oxter wrote: »

That to me is a vitriolic personal attack.

Yes read my OP.

I outlined the reasons I can’t stand the man.

Why do you need to ask again?

Wheeliebin30

Wheeliebin30 wrote: »

But we all pay small amounts of our tax into numerous pots to keep society going.

Just because it’s 4 euro has no relevance.

Does that mean we can’t have an opinion on anything where our money goes?

I don’t get this logic at all sorry.

I've just explained the reasoning. Of course everyone is entitled to comment, and I have no right to tell you you don't.

That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that it's only costing you loose change. You were the one who brought your tax into it as a justification for your anger.

Oxter

Wheeliebin30 wrote: »

Yes read my OP.

I outlined the reasons I can’t stand the man.

Why do you need to ask again?

Pray that your iq increases to double digits.

Wheeliebin30

Oxter wrote: »

Pray that your iq increases to double digits.

Nice.


Attack my intelligence.

Great way to go with the discussion.

Wheeliebin30

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

I've just explained the reasoning. Of course everyone is entitled to comment, and I have no right to tell you you don't.

That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that it's only costing you loose change. You were the one who brought your tax into it as a justification for your anger.

But most things only cost people loose change yet we all have a say and a right to express opinions on them.

I still don’t get the logic.

Wheeliebin30

Wheeliebin30 wrote: »

But most things only cost people loose change yet we all have a say and a right to express opinions on them.

I still don’t get the logic.

Nobody is saying you can't express an opinion. Even people who don't work for a living anymore, like pensioners, are entitled to express an opinion.

The point is you used your tax precisely as the justification for anger. But that can't be it, because only about 1 cent per day, 4 quid a year, goes to McVerry from you.

Going to stop emphasising that now because the point is clearly made and I doubt you're going to accept it.

Wheeliebin30

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Nobody is saying you can't express an opinion. Even people who don't work for a living anymore, like pensioners, are entitled to express an opinion.

The point is you used your tax precisely as the justification for anger. But that can't be it, because only about 1 cent per day, 4 quid a year, goes to McVerry from you.

Going to stop emphasising that now because the point is clearly made and I doubt you're going to accept it.

Yeah I’m not let’s move on.

And by the way a poster asked me what I do for the homeless and I said I donate through taxes.

I never brought up my tax been spent in anger before that poster asked the question.

jmayo

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

the number of suspicious killings in Ireland are about half the rate it was in the mid-00s, when organised crime was at its peak. We're back now to 1980s levels.

Are we really ?

Would these same stats be down to the AGS?
The same AGS that had millions of breath tests and underestimated the homicide rate by 18% between 2003 and 2016 or underestimated the manslaughter rate by 44% in that same time period ?

We may be better than the period 2000 to 2015 when it was found that the gun homicide rate in the Irish Republic was more than double that of Northern Ireland or that you were 6 times more likely to be killed in Ireland than in England/Wales.

According to the Central Statistics Office (CSO), ‘Weapons and Explosives’ offences rose by more than 10% in Ireland in just one year between 2017 and 2018 – to a total of 2,248 incidents.

The CSO recorded a total of 77 homicides in Ireland for 2018 but worryingly it also said that the quality of the statistics given to them by the Department of Justice ‘do not meet the standard required of official statistics published by the CSO’.

I don't remember 77 murders in Ireland in say 1985.

In fact there were 25 murders and 12 manslaughters.

BTW in 1971 there were 4 murders and 6 manslaughters.

Between 1972 and 1991 the stats show an average homicide rate of 9.9 per million per year.

In the 70s one year throws the stats out because in one day in 1974 33 people were killed by bombs on the streets of Dublin and Monaghan.

In 2012 the stats show an average homicide rate of 12 per million per year.

I don't have more recent stats.

So are we fook back at 1980s rate for violent crime in this country.

We may just be better as you yourself admit than we were when things were very bad in say 2007 when it was 18 per million per year.

And as for petty crime speak to any farmer to find out how bad rural crime has gotten.
The only reason people report things to the Guards now is for insurance purposes because as sure as hell they aint going to catch anyone half the time :mad:

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Your perceived increase in murders and violent crime generally appears to be a falsehood, a bias. Ireland was a far more violent place 100+ years ago, at a time when we were sentencing people to hard labour and deporting our own citizens and when there were very few social supports.

Ehh wippee there boy.
You decide to first jump to a point where supposedly our murder rate is low and then to a point when Britain was in charge and we deported people. :rolleyes:

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

These things are all related. Education, opportunity and a social safety-net has provided an alternative to crime and to ignorant behaviour for millions of us. And I really do mean 'us'.

Speak for yourself there sunshine.
My family even when they were all leaving school at 13/14 and most having to take an emigrant boat still weren't resorting to crime.

pure.conya

Wheeliebin30 wrote: »

Yep that I am.

At the legal system and scumbags who bring terror on innocent people.

have you anything to say about the men in suits that robbed every single one of us?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LMBfc6uBoTk

El_Duderino 09

pure.conya wrote: »

have you anything to say about the men in suits that robbed every single one of us?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LMBfc6uBoTk

So far this thread hasn’t wanted to look at white collar crime. They want to talk about scumbags, drug addicts and petty criminals. There’s no interest in the other kind of crime.

As with other threads on this topic, the ones who want harshness only want it for other people. They don’t want harshness for crimes they might commit like under declaring income or speeding.

Hal3000

jmayo wrote: »

Are we really ?

Would these same stats be down to the AGS?
The same AGS that had millions of breath tests and underestimated the homicide rate by 18% between 2003 and 2016 or underestimated the manslaughter rate by 44% in that same time period ?

We may be better than the period 2000 to 2015 when it was found that the gun homicide rate in the Irish Republic was more than double that of Northern Ireland or that you were 6 times more likely to be killed in Ireland than in England/Wales.



I don't remember 77 murders in Ireland in say 1985.

In fact there were 25 murders and 12 manslaughters.

BTW in 1971 there were 4 murders and 6 manslaughters.

Between 1972 and 1991 the stats show an average homicide rate of 9.9 per million per year.

In the 70s one year throws the stats out because in one day in 1974 33 people were killed by bombs on the streets of Dublin and Monaghan.

In 2012 the stats show an average homicide rate of 12 per million per year.

I don't have more recent stats.

So are we fook back at 1980s rate for violent crime in this country.

We may just be better as you yourself admit than we were when things were very bad in say 2007 when it was 18 per million per year.

And as for petty crime speak to any farmer to find out how bad rural crime has gotten.
The only reason people report things to the Guards now is for insurance purposes because as sure as hell they aint going to catch anyone half the time :mad:



Ehh wippee there boy.
You decide to first jump to a point where supposedly our murder rate is low and then to a point when Britain was in charge and we deported people. :rolleyes:



Speak for yourself there sunshine.
My family even when they were all leaving school at 13/14 and most having to take an emigrant boat still weren't resorting to crime.

I argued this earlier in the thread and was told we are now safer than we've ever been with an actual comparison to Victorian times ?????? This was done to try to justify being against harsh sentencing for violent crime. Until we start to get tough on crime offending will increase...

Wheeliebin30

pure.conya wrote: »

have you anything to say about the men in suits that robbed every single one of us?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LMBfc6uBoTk

Yes.

But this thread ain’t about da banks.

If you want my opinion start a thread about da banks.

El_Duderino 09

Hal3000 wrote: »

I argued this earlier in the thread and was told we are now safer than we've ever been with an actual comparison to Victorian times ?????? This was done to try to justify being against harsh sentencing for violent crime. Until we start to get tough on crime offending will increase...

But they were much harder on crime in Victorian times and there was more crime back then.

We’re we much harder on crime in the 1980s when murder was at a low point than Victorian times when crime was rife?

El_Duderino 09

Wheeliebin30 wrote: »

Yes.

But this thread ain’t about da banks.

If you want my opinion start a thread about da banks.

Lol. The thread is about Peter McVerry offering a reference on behalf of a criminal to the effect that he is now engaging in drug rehab. But all you want to talk about is harsher sentences which isn’t the topic of the thread but that doesn’t stop you offering your opinion on it.