That is a fairly standard tactic when people realise they have made
a mistake.
>>but the cycling lobby was swift to launch a
>>counter-attack by way of a write-in to the Editor,
I didn't notice "the cycling lobby" doing so. I did notice
individuals who were outraged by the vile article writing to various
people. Some of them said they had done this and provided links for
others to do the same.
>>and we redressed the balance with a letter the following day,
>and a second letter and a Thunderer column by a cyclist on Monday.
Has anyone found a way of accessing past issues of this "news"paper
to read such letters?
David Hansen wrote on 06/01/2008 10:28:
>
>>> and we redressed the balance with a letter the following day,
>> and a second letter and a Thunderer column by a cyclist on Monday.
>
> Has anyone found a way of accessing past issues of this "news"paper
> to read such letters?
Most cities' central libraries will have archives of the main and local
papers, either in paper form for recent issues or microfiche for older
ones. As an aside, in the case of the Times there's an online searchable
electronic archive (pdf) of the paper up 'til about 1985 which libraries
can give you access to. In the case of Manchester's libraries access to
this (and a load of other online resources like encyclopaedias) is
combined with your membership and you just need a username and password.
It's fascinating to peruse.
On Fri, 04 Jan 2008 14:05:40 +0000, Nick <[email protected]> wrote:
>David Hansen wrote:
>> On Fri, 04 Jan 2008 09:40:35 GMT someone who may be
>> [email protected] (Ekul Namsob) wrote this:-
>>
>>>> Some other people called for a group of people to be decapitated.
>>>> Well the word they used was behead. Some of them were sentenced to a
>>>> few years in prison last year, though they will be let out before
>>>> the end of the so-called sentence.
>>> "so-called"?
>>
>> So-called.
>>
>> If people are sentenced to say six years in prison then they should
>> generally serve six years in prison. If the courts wish to sentence
>> people to three years in prison, followed by three years of
>> probation, then that is what they should do.
>>
>
>I presume that this is done for a number of reasons.
>
>1. in order to increase the deterrent effect. A bit like selling goods
>for 1.99 rather than 2.00. Obviously long sentences are expensive and to
>be avoided if possible.
The "deterrent" effect is mostly a fallacy with respect to sentencing.
States that introduce the death penalty do not see a decrease in crime
usually the opposite happens.
If the Police actually caught more criminals rather than spending all
their time filling forms it may deter some.
>2. It is good to give prisoners incentives. Early release seems like a
>sensible choice. It is much easier to say we will let you out early if
>you are nice and polite rather than to say we will keep you in longer if
>you don't keep your cell tidy. Essentially offering a carrot rather than
>a stick.
Agreed.
>Normally when people present the argument that prisoners should serve
>the full sentence they really mean that they think that sentences are
>too short. However the UK already has one of largest per capita prison
>populations in Europe and there is very little evidence that it is
>effective in reducing crime.
Agreed.
>Personally I would like to see less prison and more monitoring of
>drivers. Hopefully modern electronic equipment will make it easier to
>enforce bans.
Very unlikely. The criminals would just find new ways of cicumventing
it and errors in the system would result in innocent people being
targeted.
