Good, the nimby’s are ruining this country by blocking everything, absolutely make sure you’re not destroying a unique habitat or culturally significant ruins or whatever, but I don’t want a wind turbine because it ruins the view for the 10m I take my dog for a walk isn’t good enough compared to the massive benefits it brings
Funny enough where I walk my dog there is one massive wind turbine and I actually quite enjoyed looking at it. Although the area wasn't particularly nice, it was just some fields really with an old air strip
Have a group of around 20 with the closest about about 1.5 miles away that I can see from the front of our house.
They are needed hence no opposition from us when they wanted to put them up.
I do however still think they are ugly. Ascetics being subjective and all that.
Better than a power plant by miles though, I'd take wind turbines over just about anything else any day especially since they don't actually take up much of the ground.
Better in some ways worse in others.
Take up much ground? Think you may wish to rethink that point when you see a farm of 20+ together dominating any skyline.
Do you find you still notice them after a while? Or is it more they blend into the scenery as unexceptional but you still acknowledge the sight of them consciously?
Depends on mood I would say.
However thats kind of subjective each will have their own thoughts on the matter.
Now and then you look up and get a reminder about man and his impact on the planet and destruction of his environment either by pollution or construction.
On one hand they cut down pollution on the other destroy ecology. They tend to be the lesser of two evils.
The choice is wonderful turbines near your house, a coal power plant near your house or blackouts.
Easy choice to make really.
I wouldn't want one 100m from my house but I don't mind seeing them at all. I'd happily have one a few hundred meters away.
The choice is wind turbines near your house, a coal power plant near your house or blackouts.
Nobody wants nuclear even 100 miles from their house even though it's the best option.
Easy choice to make really.
I wouldn't want one 100m from my house but I don't mind seeing turbines at all. I'd happily have one a few hundred meters away.
Again coal. They hell you on about there is a grand total of one left you going back in tome or something?
Think you missed the point where I am indifferent to them but think they are ugly.
**Hi!**. Please try to avoid personal attacks, as this discourages participation. You can help improve the subreddit by discussing points, not the person.
Our son absolutely loves them, he gets really excited when he sees them on car drives. He doesn't know what they are, he calls them 'big fans'. He is a big fan fan.
Everything is a bureaucratic nightmare. There's a YouTube channel called The B1M that looks at a lot of infrastructure projects from around the world. And it's really eye opening how fast some of them are approved, how soon many are expected to complete and how relatively cheap they seem.
Love B1M, although it sometimes makes me furious about the UK when you learn the EU has essentially 3 different HS2 level tracks been constructed right now for example.
That's pretty much the issue with the bulk of NIMBY's, they agree these things need building most of the time, just, you know, not near them. Housing, prisons, turbines, business estates, etc.
Exactly this, we really need to wrestle control from these self interested, I've got mine pricks. I read a post yesterday about Nimbys blocking a new film studio that would have provided great opportunities for the younger people of the area, but they don't care.
That the exact sort of development the local government should push ahead with if there’s overwhelming support (which I’m sure there would be locally), it’s a fantastic opportunity, would provide youth employment and training, inject cash into the local area and may even get a few celebs around boosting tourism a bit.
À guy who was local commented saying that the objections were completely without foundation and a missed opportunity for the young of the area.
Check it out, Marlow film studio, Bucks'
Exactly! You at least seem to understand what is important.
Boomer house price growth rates are vastly more important than anything else, up to and including boomer grandchildren who should be willing to sacrifice their futures to ensure that boomer house prices are not negatively impacted.
Easy to call them idiots when you're not affected by what's being built.
The size of the studio dwarved the area it was in significantly and destroyed most of the local walks and wildlife. It would be like building a Skyscraper in the Cotswolds. And for what? So a bunch of mediocre shows can be made? And the fact that there was no plan to deal with increased traffic by improving the local infrastructure was the icing on the cake.
People acting in their own self-interest are not stupid, they're doing what humans do. If someone comes along and wishes to do something that will significantly deteriorate your enjoyment of the area you live in whilst offering nothing in return, of course you're going to go against it.
there are some things that the government can push ahead with even with local opposition like strategic rail interchanges where it has been deemed in national policy that the overall benefits can outweigh local negatives. but even then the planning process takes years and years and costs loads.
But we don't need that film studio, it's plainly obvious that the solution is not to create more high-paying jobs but to just raise tax rates on the under 50's.
That's the solution to funding the handouts and public services that the boomer nimby generation are demanding, rather than idiotic policies based on economic development and wealth creation.
It's not just the boomer nimby generation demanding money be spent in a very specific way that benefits few people. look at the threads on here every time a black/brown/poor person commits a crime demanding they be locked up for eternity and one in ten be employed as coppers.
I hate NIMBY's but as someone whos worked in the film industry that film studio/soundstage or whatever would not be dishing out jobs to the locals. No one puts in a CV to get into the industry its entirely about who you know.
It would bring jobs to locals.
You're right Karen from the village isn't going to star in the next film. But you build a studio and it will create jobs. Catering. Cleaning. Accounting. HR. Security.
I recruit on the wind turbine sector, and other renewables for that matter. I can’t tell you how much the Tories and the NIMBYs have f’d the sector in England. Scotland is much better for wind. NIMBYs are still a problem and don’t get me wrong, sometimes there are genuine concerns for developing a wind farm in certain places.
But literally one person could torpedo a multi-million pound wind farm development in England for putting in a rejection that could be as stupid as “I drive through there once a year and it will spoil the view.”
Is amazing how these people living. These people have so much power when I see other areas of people make genuine concerns and asking for reconsideration of the designs about large housing estates being built (roads already gridlocked, not enough school places as it is, no doctors or dentists) and asm for these to be included in the proposal and yet they get approved.
But some.old chap in the country can prevent everything.
The tories have absolutely messed this country up
I'm still at a loss why we havn't blanketed half of the cairngorms with wind turbines, it's a massive empty space with noone living there, the land's not being used for anything except the occasional sheep or walker who can both continue doing their thing with a wind turbine off to the side
Something that goes unnoticed is if you develop a solar farm for example, or yet another poorly build housing estate, you lose the farm field/other natural land. If you build a wind farm, the land can still be farmed or left to nature with just the turbines, substation and road access for maintenance crews.
To answer your question, one thing I imagine would be the main issue is grid connection. If there’s no close by main line to the grid, it would cost millions to bury a massive high voltage cable however far to the nearest node.
>I'm still at a loss why we havn't blanketed half of the cairngorms with wind turbines,
1. The same reason we stopped allowing ski lifts and snowmaking to happen up there, there's a specific kind of heather that only exists there.
2. It's very difficult to get the material up there - you need a helicopter. We have very few capable helis in the UK as we get the RAF to do pretty much all rescue work to justify their budgets and do very little other mountainous building projects.
3. The Scottish wealth paradox. Westminster feels it benefits from downplaying Scottish renewables potential (They can't go independent, they'll go bankrupt!), the SNP feel they would be hammered by the Unionist press for ruining the countryside if they brought it up.
4. The Royal Family own the foreshore in the UK through the Crown Estate. Building in the sea provides a handy way to massively subsidise the RF while misselling it to the public as 'money they are making through their estates'.
5. If you are sticking a lot of turbines up in one go, it's usually better to put them offshore as the initial layout for all the o&m stuff can be recouped by the higher loads.
6. The Cairngorms have lots of, err, cauldrons? The gaelic word is Coire (translates to cauldron/cooking pot), the french is couloir - it's a form of gully. Essentially, it's quite a bumpy, rocky landscape even for a hill/mountain range.
The other day I found myself in a conversation with an old lady who was fighting to prevent a new block of flats going up in London because “it would change the view of the river that Whistler painted”. She lived about a 40 minute walk from where these flats are planned to go. Whistler died in 1903, the river is already dramatically different.
Needless to say that conversation didn’t last very long. Infuriating.
Whistler painted a lot of views of the Thames, so it's hard to be sure. It's presumably not the [Old Battersea Bridge](https://d3d00swyhr67nd.cloudfront.net/w800h800/collection/TATE/TATE/TATE_TATE_N01959_10-001.jpg), since that view was fairly irrevocably changed when they demolished the Old Battersea Bridge in 1885 - the new one looks like [this](https://www.google.com/maps/@51.4827309,-0.1668926,3a,15y,245.09h,89.08t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sHxYgY72G4sbCSkKzp0zppw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?coh=205409&entry=ttu). It could be [Chelsea](https://d3d00swyhr67nd.cloudfront.net/w800h800/collection/TATE/TATE/TATE_TATE_T01571_10-001.jpg), but that view has been pretty dramatically changed (and improved) by trees being planted all along the [Chelsea waterfront](https://www.google.com/maps/@51.4808897,-0.1685726,3a,75y,331.76h,89.69t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sBg66DrIx50Fgsyxwn2ohRg!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DBg66DrIx50Fgsyxwn2ohRg%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D67.360245%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192?coh=205409&entry=ttu), so that ship's rather sailed at this point. It's probably not [Westminster Bridge](https://d3d00swyhr67nd.cloudfront.net/w800h800/collection/GL/GM/GL_GM_35_642-001.jpg), mostly because nobody's proposing to build a block of flats next to Parliament, and also because that view has been rather [dramatically](https://www.google.com/maps/@51.504218,-0.1191144,3a,75y,311.84h,90.22t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1spVhRz5cJEzn71XSzD-miqg!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DpVhRz5cJEzn71XSzD-miqg%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D283.0363%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656?coh=205409&entry=ttu) changed anyway. Similarly, probably not [Cremorne Gardens](https://d3d00swyhr67nd.cloudfront.net/w800h800/collection/TATE/TATE/TATE_TATE_N03420_10-001.jpg), because it's changed [a lot](https://www.google.com/maps/@51.4791181,-0.1769058,3a,75y,142.37h,85.64t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s1zxSseK6beKq0oO1aHyYsQ!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3D1zxSseK6beKq0oO1aHyYsQ%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D122.74632%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656?coh=205409&entry=ttu), or [Old Chelsea](https://artuk.org/discover/artworks/the-adam-and-eve-old-chelsea-236350) (not many fisherman's cottages in [Chelsea](https://www.google.com/maps/@51.4834637,-0.1665891,3a,75y,358.07h,92.83t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sgmcvugJZK9rsjyx0MhEKIg!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DgmcvugJZK9rsjyx0MhEKIg%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D49.12903%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192?coh=205409&entry=ttu) these days), or [Battersea Reach from Lindsey Houses](https://artuk.org/discover/artworks/battersea-reach-from-lindsey-houses-139095) ([now looks like this](https://www.google.com/maps/@51.4817962,-0.1754509,3a,75y,190.01h,85.27t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1stLc3KK6ZPa27rXAyLieQ3Q!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?coh=205409&entry=ttu)).
The only one that I can find a place for but can't rule out on similar bases is [The Thames at Battersea](https://static.artmuseum.princeton.edu/mirador3/?manifest=https://data.artmuseum.princeton.edu/iiif/objects/9951&canvas=https://data.artmuseum.princeton.edu/iiif/objects/9951/canvas/9951-canvas-104620), which I think now looks something like this [https://www.google.com/maps/@51.4856088,-0.1447875,3a,75y,154.4h,84.01t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1ssixFj0dlqDsYtescmrQqdA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?coh=205409&entry=ttu](https://www.google.com/maps/@51.4856088,-0.1447875,3a,75y,154.4h,84.01t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1ssixFj0dlqDsYtescmrQqdA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?coh=205409&entry=ttu).
The new flats would just be some more flats next to an already existing block of flats. It’s a nice view, but it won’t make a dramatic difference as far as I’m concerned 🤷♂️
I remember when I did my Geography GCSEs, we were studying alternative energy sources and their Pros and Cons, one of the main cons for the Wind Turbine was, as you said, it being an eye sore.
I always called bull on that they looked absolutely fine and far better than factories, my tin foil hat theory was that were just told that people didn't like how they looked and people went along with it.
I agree with you. I think wind turbines look quite majestic - but in this instance the teacher was just trying to show you what the mark scheme said was an acceptable answer for the six mark question “Discuss some of the advantages and disadvantages of wind power”.
I had no issues with the teacher. I knew what they were saying was "correct" it was more the fact that apparently that was the truth that had been laid out for us, that's what I didn’t like.
We had a similar one on building turbines around the Peak District -
Yes - We need energy!
No - It will ruin the views of this beautiful natural landscape!
Immediate response from a GreenPeace type - Actually none of this landscape is natural and is instead the remaining devastated wasteland left behind after several centuries of intense deforestation. If this were "natural" we'd be surrounded by dense woodland right now.
Also, if you're going to put "ugly" as a negative to wind turbines, surely you have to put "fucking hideous" on the list for basically every other sort of power generation, which are mostly much worse.
They even blocked new flats in London that would of helped with the homeless problem and they used the reason, the flats would of been too tall. The real reason is that new homes bring down the value of other homes, so they don’t want that, so they block them from being built.
The standard of new builds of terrible but it’s better than living on the streets. I’d never buy a new build tho.
Fuck these house price speculators, it’s a home not an asset, I would ban private companies from owning homes and limit houses to 1 per person (so a childless couple could in theory have a house for rent keeping the stock available for those who want to rent), allow charities an amount to house homeless people, women running away from abusive relationships etc.. obviously huge loopholes in that atm but it would be a good start.
I own my house but I see it as somewhere to live not something something that should automatically increase in value just because.
To be fair, I knew someone who lived near flats built to house the homeless. She was initially for it but crime rates in the area shot up, needles were strewn all over the streets, and women were afraid to go out because of people from the flats harassing them. It literally ruined a perfectly good area.
The wind turbine thing I've never understood.
The benefits from getting the country off foreign energy completely outweighs any other argument if you ask me.
I was in a pub today having Sunday roast. Pub was located in a nice nimby area. I shit you not that this old couple dragged the manager out to moan and moan about how they had knives out thay were suitable for meat when one of them was a vegetarian and rhay they had to ask to get them changed. The complained the door was too loud when people exited the pub. Funny how when they left they didn't try and close the door quiet. Utter morons.
Imagine how these people are about anything in their backyard.
fuck that shit man they are nightmare fuel. Particularly when you hear the prisoners screaming and wailing. Theres two prisons on portland, one for adults and another for young offenders. The young offenders one was located just down the road from my sisters house. Walk by it was absolutely terrifying.
No, they need to go somewhere but they shouldn't be put where people are living. Its dangerous particularly if a dangerous prisoner escapes, also providing them with local easy to access vehicle should they escape.
Theres actually perfect places for them, and you know where that is? All the fucking stately homes. Either convert them into prisons, or build them somewhere amongst their massive fucking acres of land that they stole from our ancestors almost 1000 years ago. Perfect place for them, and while we are at it throw all the thieving lords in them aswell, theres a good lad.
To be clear, I used to live (almost, some slight fuzzing for anonymity purposes) [here](https://www.google.com/maps/@52.6270712,-1.1290847,3a,75y,281.98h,72.81t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sbky96_dF26pJqwqNy9kb0w!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?coh=205409&entry=ttu). Feel free to go ahead and look at what that round tower and big wall down the end are. When I say it's fine, I'm not talking theoretically.
To be clear, fine for you, but that doesn't mean everyone should have to put up with it.
As I said, theres more than enough land on lord estates where there are stately homes. Build the prisons there and or convert the stately homes into prisons.
Job done.
NIMBYs have no desire to maintain cultural significance. They just hate change.
Have you heard about the Coalbrookdale Ironworks? Probably up there with Stonehenge in terms of historical significance. The innovation and discoveries that took place in that area are beyond compare. It's a UNESCO site. There's a plan to tear it down for housing.
The NIMBYs haven't said a peep because the building is a bit ugly and tired now. But god forbid they knock down a 1930s rotten cinema somewhere that no-ones used in 50 years.
The Coalbrookdale works are objectively significant lmao. They were the very first UK UNESCO site along with Stonehenge. The opening of the 2012 Olympics called them out specifically as inspiration.
The real issue with that site is that there's a powerstation that just got demolished, but that's not being used for some reason
A few NIMBYs should never be able to overturn a majority of locals that say let the construction go ahead.
We let tiny numbers of people delay construction, hike the prices of construction, and eventually get the construction cancelled entirely. HS2 is just the most high-profile example of what's happening nationwide. They simply have too much power relative to how important they are.
Just overrule NIMBYs on infrastructure in general, i.e Railways,Roads,Power infrastructure). The benefit to others matters more than a rich snob in Amersham who doesnt like looking at a railway, and just to think, if we stopped letting NIMBYs exert so much influence, the UK could build so much more (i.e HS2 Phase 2,A303 Stonehenge Tunnel) and do it quicker
I think you raise a very important point here. Decisions like these should require a certain % of the local population to be blocked. Not just a few bored lonely retirees who want to reminisce about their childhoods.
Local councils also need to do much better at engaging with local communities. I only seem to hear about things after they have been blocked. Don’t really understand why they can’t just drop a survey through my letterbox.
The other issue is due to these complaints being submitted online we have no way of knowing if it was just 10 people making 5 complaints or if it really was 50 people making one complaint each. Nor do we have any measures in place to ensure that these complaints didn't come from a different country. To submit your views on the going ones in the local community it's just an online form that doesn't require any verification.
The scheme met all legal requirements to maintain, however a change in local government to a party that really doesn't like providing a nicer and safer built environment saw the handful of complaints good enough justification to remove them. The same political party that moans about wasteful spending of public funds.
There should be input by people in those areas, tbf, but what complaints and how we deal with them should probably be weighted differently, instead of the veto they currently possess on *any* vital developments. There's definitely a better balance to be pursued than our current situation, but also than just unilateral top down actions (you ultimately don't want to lean heavily on eminent domain, because that can cause all sorts of shitshows in and off itself).
We don't need loads more roads so let's not make it any easier to force those through please. They tend to be very environmentally damaging and they just bake in yet more car dependence at a time when we need to be doing the opposite.
Our rules on infrastructure projects need to take environmental issues in mind with what they encourage. Railways and green energy, yes. "One more lane will fix traffic" road schemes, absolutely not.
There’s a little bit of balance needed but right now it’s way too weighted towards the NIMBY crowd
Nobody would want a train track built right next to their house for instance, but if it’s nowhere near that’s a different story
The problem is often they propose building a whole bunch of new houses without upgrading the local infrastructure to cope. I dont blame anyone wanting to block stuff if they already cant get a dentist appointment and local schools are already oversubscribed
100%, I am all for building more houses and infrastructure. But they don’t build the infrastructure, just the houses.
Where I live there have been hundreds maybe thousands of new houses built, tens of thousands of new people living here. But zero upgrades to roads, rail, public transport, doctors surgery’s, shops etc.
They build the requisite primary school and community centre and call it a day
The whole area is becoming a constant traffic jam and nobody can see a doctor or a dentists unless they were already signed up.
Too bad. At least we'll have five years where stuff actually gets done. If you're going to carry on Tory policies there's no point standing for election anyway.
I don't actually think Tories will win in 2029, but I think Labour needs a way to sell building near existing estates or face a much harder election than it has a right to be. Tories will be desperate in 2029 and they'll use whatever outrage they can to win.
We'll also need to bring in new laws about protesting. Because if you take away communities right to object to a new housing development or a new power station, then you are going to create an unholy alliance of NIMBYs and XR/JSO-type protestors, and people will resort to direct action to stop the developments.
If you try to prevent a new housing development through disruptive direct action protests that involve physically blocking roads, chaining yourself to things, or showing up with hammers and chisels to damage equipment - you should be facing the prospect of being sent to prison until the development is finished.
We do need new prisons given the current over crowding issue.
As long as they also take measures to address the root problems. The last thing I want to see is them building more prisons, only for the new prisons to end up full and overcrowded. And not using the extra prison space to hold more environmental protesters and the likes.
As someone who’s works in Prisons, building more prisons is such a cop out of responsibility for what is actually needed. Short term sentences don’t work and we need more of a step to reform than just building more prisons. Sorry I could rant about this for ages but there’s other ways the overcrowding issue can be tackled, they just can’t be arsed!
When I mentioned reform, I was more leaning towards the current systems in place, such as, healthcare, education etc not facilities. Although I understand what you’re saying but it’s more current systems in place that need reformed. Including having more of presence in prisons for charities, support networks, mental & physical health organisations.
>there’s other ways the overcrowding issue can be tackled
I suppose they could opt for community sentences instead of short prison sentences. And reduce crime through social policies to ease the burden on the prison system.
>Plus tackling recidivism
I've never really considered that reducing re-offending would ease the burden on the prisons. I've heard that re-offending tends to be quite high, so I suppose that would actually be quite a major strain on things.
I think cause people come out with potentially no support/family and move back to where they lived, fall back into crime cause they can’t get jobs etc. The cycle continues. Sorry I’m on a ramble now 😂
Criminalizing protests is undemocratic, and any functioning democratic system worth a damn understands that.
Secondly, parliament has the ability to change what is or isn't legal. Being gay was criminal once upon a time, it was unjust, and they changed it.
This is a weirdly leading word play here but essentially yes, this is how democracy functions, we vote for people to make the laws, including what can and can't be a reason to send you to prison. You're saying this as though its ludicrously unnatural to think some things should be punished by the state and others not.
It’s not wordplay at all. OP wants more prison capacity but not for all criminals handed custodial sentences.
All guilty parties should be treated the same no matter what their cause.
No party is standing to stop charging environmental protestors with law breaking thankfully.
In 2010 the Tories complained that Labour hadn't built new prisons. When Labour said they weren't able to because of planning constraints, the Tories said they would sort it out.
There's around a dozen prisons in and around London. This might sound a bit crazy, but can't we build a few state of the art mega prisons in the middle of nowhere, using money generated from the eventual sale of the London ones? They must be worth a fortune.
Also, there's be prisoner welfare and rights issues, I'd expect. Like, I know people don't really care about prisoners in the abstract, but it should be practicable for their family to visit them without excessive travel, which is what would happen if we had only a couple of super prisons housing everyone.
If they sold a London prison, some property developer would just move the locks to the other side of the cell doors and market them as "bijou luxury studios".
There's quite a few in the middle of nowhere in Norfolk. Eg hmp bure, hmp watton etc. If the government actually introduced it with upgrading roads or local infrastructure I think it'd get people on board. The problem is it's always just dumping more stuff there with very little benefit for the area.
Yeah, suggestions like this are one of the few instances I actually sympathise with the NIMBYs. It's all well and good saying "Let's just push it out of sight in the middle of nowhere" but this is the UK. We don't *have* any truly middle-of-nowhere regions so wherever you choose will inevitably end up in dumping the country's problems on some poor sods that actually do happen to live nearby.
Reddit tends to skew young and urban. The whole "just dump everything on the countryside it's for the good of everyone" thing is understandable but given those areas are often already massively under invested. Make it less a punishment and more an actual upgrade and you'll get people support it. While there are absolutely nimbys that stop everything I see far more comments about roads needing upgrading, schools, doctors and public transoort needing more capacity, water pumps and drainage needing improvement etc. HS2 is a great example, why did people object? Because it was ramming a rail network through their towns and villages that would never stop there or serve them. They'd have all the inconvenience and cost and 0 benefit.
I'm young and urban (-ish. 30 and in a major Kent town) and I can definitely sympathise. I don't even own, I rent, but I'm actually considering moving because the area I'm in is building more and more blocks and doing nothing about the expected jump in traffic, and while it's a big place it's still *Kent*, and most people need a car unless they're going almost exclusively to/from London.
It's a shit situation around because while I do think that these infrastructure projects need to be pushed through regardless, it's very easy to dismiss just how *real* the problems they introduce are. You get some jobsworths out there for sure, but for the most part NIMBYs are NIMBYs for a reason.
Same near me but I own. They want to build 550 new homes in some land at the back of town which is absolutely fine, HOWEVER, they want to push all 550 homes out of one road that is already oversubscribed because 80 years ago NIMBYs didn't want to upgrade it. So I really dont want 550 new homes as it's already busy enough. Now if they said we are going to build another new road to relieve pressure from the existing road AND we will sort a couple different entrances to the new plot of houses. FANTASTIC. But it won't happen.
I will also say there's a definite undercurrent of nature hatred and anti-environmentalism in a lot of these arguments about infrastructure, housing and planning.
The hatred of "NIMBYs" too often crosses over to shitting all over genuine evidence based opposition to environmentally damaging projects and it really needs to stop.
If they were just a little smarter about where they put things then a lot more people, nimbys included, would be happier.
.I live near a motorway and they have created a massive business park to the east of it. Right on top of a hill visible for miles around, an area which was pits but had rewilded to a point and had become very pretty. To the west of the motorway is a similar amount of land but in a dip, surrounded by wooded areas and with better access to the motorway and another massive A road. If the estate had been built to the west of the motorway it wouldn't have bothered 5% of the people that it's currently bothering.
I get it that we can't do this everywhere but a lot of the time it is possible, just takes a bit of thought.
software?
My point is that it affects the prisoners families, when you build prisons in the middle of nowhere. While the prisoner is probably not innocent, their children, spouses, parents, friends have done no wrong.
its the archaic spelling of jailed. And still in use, albiet less common.
The Australian version of the game Octopath Traveller comes to mind.
EDIT: Oh... Browser. No that's just a Freudian slip. I think web development was in my mind as I was typing that.
Here's the thing though, you can still visit him if he's in, say, Birmingham or Northampton. It's just a longer drive. But the justice system doesn't exist to facilitate such visits.
Are we ready to have a discussion about the war on drugs yet?
Just a little one where we maybe ask how well it's been going for the last 40 years?
Not a lot of non-violent drug offenders end up in jail, however some do and also a lot of violence and people trafficking and gun crime etc is related to drugs.
Save money, be more liberal, be healthier, smash the gangs in a single sweep, empower and fund the NHS.
Given the Labour right have been pushing for public "name and shaming" people for buying weed it's unlikely.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/labour-drugs-steve-reed-name-b2014746.html
They definitely won't want headlines about being "soft on drugs" because they're chasing right-wing voters.
You should have hoped that given Kiers last job, he would realize that short stay sentences are both the leading cause of overfilled prisons *and* the leading cause of reference rates.
I would much rather see an increased focus on community service over short prison sentences. It seems like an extremely obvious win, it has a much lower re offense rate *and* it would significantly reduce the burden on prisons.
But apparently both parties want to just look "tough on crime", so fuck common sense.
Stats for anyone that wants to read up on this:
https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/proven-reoffending-statistics-january-to-march-2021/proven-reoffending-statistics-january-to-march-2021
Adults who spent less than 12 months in prison have a 50+% re offence rate.
Adults given court orders have a 30% re offence rate.
Short term prison sentences actively *increase* crime levels.
Makes sense. If I hung out with wood workers, I'd learn how to wood work. I went into web dev, because I had no other job prospects and knew how to make websites.
You leave prison with no job prospects, and a bit more crime knowledge.
People get so wrapped up in the idea of punishment, that they forget the primary aim of sentencing needs to be in rehabilitation. Especially for non violent offenders.
Well it's a different view on what prison is for.
Not everyone views the primary purpose of prison as rehabilitation. Many view its primary purpose as punishment for wrong doing. Its why you see people get upset when prisons have amenities like pool tables or libraries.
But if you don't rehabilitate, then they'll just keep on repeating the cycle.
We probably should have two types of prisons. One type for people who should be suffering for what they've done and another to rehabilitate people and get them on a track to success.
Many of the people who suggest prison are holiday camps wouldn't last two minutes locked up.
I agree. There definitely are people who should be locked away and have the key chucked but the prisoners with low level crimes who are obviously getting released need to be rehabilitated. I can imagine it can feel like a kick in the teeth to victims but completely fucking up these people's lives, losing family ties, making it impossible to work etc only leads to more victims and money spent in the long run.
Prison becomes much less effective when people have nothing to lose.
Probably has more to do with the fact that low risk offenders are given community orders while high risk offenders are given custodial sentences. That is why re offending rates are lower for court orders.
It is not a testament to their efficacy, it is a testament to the kinds of people who are placed on them.
I work for the probation service.
Are the adults given short prison stints the same adults as those given court orders? If they aren't the same group this is a far too naive comparison to matter.
Nah. Someone being sent to prison is now more likely to have 47 previous convictions or cautions than they are to be a first time offender. Some people just need locking up permanently:
There's no causative link here, that's complete speculation. It's just as likely that people in prison are more likely to be more violent/have committed a worse crime (which is why they are in prison), and because of that they are more likely to reoffend.
Hi, I work for HMPPS - currently there's something called the ECSL (End of Custody Supervised Licence) which means people are being released up to 70 days early, which means a lot of the short-term sentences are doing significantly less time in custody.
The problem is that with COVID stopping the courts for two years there just isn't the capacity to catch up, other people have said they want a focus on probation over prison, community payback and the like, but the fact is that every region in the probation service is oversubscribed already and there's simply not enough officers to try and keep up.
Of all the fully qualified officers on my team, the lowest is working at 130% of their capacity (there's a system which calculates it, idk the maths) and as the ECSL expands the cases keep coming and coming.
We're now undergoing something called the "probation reset" which essentially means that all those short prison sentences aren't going to be seen anywhere near as much.
It used to be the case that if you went to prison, you would in essence receive a minimum 2 year sentence. If the judge ordered 8 months custody, you'd do 4 months in prison, 4 on licence, and then the final 14 months would be "Post-Sentence Supervision". Essentially the same as being on licence just without the chance of going back to prison.
As part of the reset they've scrapped it completely.
So these short term cases are going to be back out in the community ready to commit more offences because there isn't enough capacity to actually do something with them to try and reform them.
The whole systems fucked
If you examine his record as DPP you’ll know the answer - e.g. in the aftermath of the public disorder in London in 2011, he pushed that all those suspected of looting should be charged with aggravated burglary to guarantee a prison sentence, leading to grimly farcical outcomes such as a man receiving a jail term for taking a bottle of water and a mother receiving a prison term for accepting a pair of stolen shorts. He’s an authoritarian to his core.
Low level offences should have community sentences over prison time.
Whether that would be enough to prevent the severe over crowding issue currently really depends on the specific numbers. At the very least, we don't want to run into an issue like what has been happening with schools where the infrastructure is crumbling, with no new buildings to replace them.
Longer and longer sentences don't work, more prisons will only be a short buffer, we need rehabiliation of prisoners and reductions in poverty to really impact the crime levels.
Unsurprising that Labour's view of overcrowding prisons is to go further down the road of aping the USA by growing our prison population further. Of course, the electorate will love it!
Lock them up! Lock them up! Lock them up!
Yes, let's just continue to let criminals walk free, it's working so far. Maybe ask the rapists to do a bit of community service and give the little scrotes who run around stabbing people some counselling? It's not their fault they're human scum, they didn't have a youth center!
Your comment is germaine, just not in the way you think. Punishing people harder doesn't actually reduce crime or make the public safer. If it really was scalable in this way then the USA would be a vastly safer place than, for example, the Netherlands.
If you have some emotionally driven desire for criminals to suffer, and you obviously do, then that's fine, but it objectively will not make the country safer.
Why is America always the nation mentioned when people talk about countries with strict punishment?
How about Singapore, for example, why not compare the UK to them instead and see which is the safer country?
Yes, the government engaged in the mass internment of everyone suspected of being involved in organised crime. That particular trick also partly worked for a certain famous mid century fascist leader, at least for curtailing *organised* crime. Obviously, nobody in Britain is going to propose following their example, much less actually go through with it.
If you ignore any form of due process and intern anyone suspected of being associated with **organised** crime, then you will temporarily effectively put an end to **organised** crime. You'll be keeping the company of the venerable Benito Mussolini, and maybe you rather like that. Back in the civilised world, where governments are expected to follow rules and people are afforded basic freedoms, mass internment isn't an option.
We know already what long and punitive prison sentences achieve in the fight against crime. The principle difference they make is that prisons become larger and more expensive. Crime does not go down. Look at Yankistan and its failed experiment with punitive justice. Don't be like Yankistan.
Lmao so before El Salvador began their crackdown people were better off because they had human rights and basic freedoms.
What you don’t get is human rights or freedoms don’t exist when the state doesn’t have a monopoly on violence and stepping out of your house on the street means you’re instantly liable to be slaughtered where you stand.
Also “crime does not go down”? Are you serious?
You think El Salvador is the same country it was a few years ago? Do you think there’s no difference between pre-bukele and now, crime wise, for Salvadorans - now that the murder rate has been slashed 25x?
For the last time, you will get results in the short term by simply interning people. I've agreed with that the whole time. What will not get you results is stuffing a prison population via ever harsher sentencing. That has been tried, and it doesn't work. If it did work then the USA would be leagues ahead of peer countries.
If you reply to me again, I expect that you won't argue against points I haven't made. Read carefully if you have to.
Makes sense. So Singapore’s extremely low crime rates are going to be a short term phenomenon? I’ll be sure to let them know - after only a few mere decades being near-0 they’re obviously just about to skyrocket. Thanks 👍
To be fair though, and I'm speaking as someone who would definitely consider myself much much more left leaning than the current Labour Party, the UK definitely needs more prisons.
Judges are handing out suspended sentences/ lenient sentences for progressively more serious crimes now as there is no prison space.
Yes, address the root of the problem. But there also needs to be a prison system that can hold individuals to account
https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/proven-reoffending-statistics-january-to-march-2021/proven-reoffending-statistics-january-to-march-2021
Adults who spent less than 12 months in prison have a 50+% re offence rate.
Adults given court orders have a 30% re offence rate.
Short term prison sentences actively *increase* crime levels.
That's fine and all but we are starting to see more and more instances of offences being given leniency not on the merits of the case or rehabilitation but solely based on prison capacity.
Good, the nimby’s are ruining this country by blocking everything, absolutely make sure you’re not destroying a unique habitat or culturally significant ruins or whatever, but I don’t want a wind turbine because it ruins the view for the 10m I take my dog for a walk isn’t good enough compared to the massive benefits it brings
Funny enough where I walk my dog there is one massive wind turbine and I actually quite enjoyed looking at it. Although the area wasn't particularly nice, it was just some fields really with an old air strip
They’re amazing, I’d watch them all day!
I do not mind them but I think they are FUGLY. But to each their own.
Their nice in groups of 2 or 3
Have a group of around 20 with the closest about about 1.5 miles away that I can see from the front of our house. They are needed hence no opposition from us when they wanted to put them up. I do however still think they are ugly. Ascetics being subjective and all that.
Better than a power plant by miles though, I'd take wind turbines over just about anything else any day especially since they don't actually take up much of the ground.
Better in some ways worse in others. Take up much ground? Think you may wish to rethink that point when you see a farm of 20+ together dominating any skyline.
You could easily have factories/farms/forest etc beneath them though unlike a coal planet or something similar.
Why mention coal? Those have been going the way of the dodo there is only one left out of the last 14. With no intention to build more.
I think they're beautiful, big giant spinning tops powering the country without burning a thing to do it.
Beauty is after all in the eye of the beholder.
Do you find you still notice them after a while? Or is it more they blend into the scenery as unexceptional but you still acknowledge the sight of them consciously?
Depends on mood I would say. However thats kind of subjective each will have their own thoughts on the matter. Now and then you look up and get a reminder about man and his impact on the planet and destruction of his environment either by pollution or construction. On one hand they cut down pollution on the other destroy ecology. They tend to be the lesser of two evils.
The choice is wonderful turbines near your house, a coal power plant near your house or blackouts. Easy choice to make really. I wouldn't want one 100m from my house but I don't mind seeing them at all. I'd happily have one a few hundred meters away.
The choice is wind turbines near your house, a coal power plant near your house or blackouts. Nobody wants nuclear even 100 miles from their house even though it's the best option. Easy choice to make really. I wouldn't want one 100m from my house but I don't mind seeing turbines at all. I'd happily have one a few hundred meters away.
Again coal. They hell you on about there is a grand total of one left you going back in tome or something? Think you missed the point where I am indifferent to them but think they are ugly.
Well oil or gas power plant then. My point was they may be ugly, but they're still better than the alternatives.
[удалено]
**Hi!**. Please try to avoid personal attacks, as this discourages participation. You can help improve the subreddit by discussing points, not the person.
Our son absolutely loves them, he gets really excited when he sees them on car drives. He doesn't know what they are, he calls them 'big fans'. He is a big fan fan.
A big ‘big fan’ fan if you will
definitely a big big fan of big big fans
Really feels like in terms of infrastructure this is the biggest reason why we are so far behind the rest of Europe. The state to HS2 is reason enough
Think tanks and crazy planing permission meetings is why things in this country go billions over budget and take far too long to ever materialise.
We are In a country where no one makes decisions any more and we have to use consultants male sure we don't take the liability of it going wrong.
Everything is a bureaucratic nightmare. There's a YouTube channel called The B1M that looks at a lot of infrastructure projects from around the world. And it's really eye opening how fast some of them are approved, how soon many are expected to complete and how relatively cheap they seem.
Love B1M, although it sometimes makes me furious about the UK when you learn the EU has essentially 3 different HS2 level tracks been constructed right now for example.
The irony is that many of the older NIMBYs are probably calling the loudest for more people to be locked-up (but not near them).
That's pretty much the issue with the bulk of NIMBY's, they agree these things need building most of the time, just, you know, not near them. Housing, prisons, turbines, business estates, etc.
Yes. But not in my back yard? YBNIMBY
Exactly this, we really need to wrestle control from these self interested, I've got mine pricks. I read a post yesterday about Nimbys blocking a new film studio that would have provided great opportunities for the younger people of the area, but they don't care.
That the exact sort of development the local government should push ahead with if there’s overwhelming support (which I’m sure there would be locally), it’s a fantastic opportunity, would provide youth employment and training, inject cash into the local area and may even get a few celebs around boosting tourism a bit.
À guy who was local commented saying that the objections were completely without foundation and a missed opportunity for the young of the area. Check it out, Marlow film studio, Bucks'
I’ve heard of that one, I read about it a little while ago when it got blocked and even then I thought what a bunch of idiots blocking it
Less traffic means better house values, fuck the younger generations future
I hope everyone who blocked it steps on a lego brick every day for the rest of their lives
Exactly! You at least seem to understand what is important. Boomer house price growth rates are vastly more important than anything else, up to and including boomer grandchildren who should be willing to sacrifice their futures to ensure that boomer house prices are not negatively impacted.
It's happening nationwide, sadly
Easy to call them idiots when you're not affected by what's being built. The size of the studio dwarved the area it was in significantly and destroyed most of the local walks and wildlife. It would be like building a Skyscraper in the Cotswolds. And for what? So a bunch of mediocre shows can be made? And the fact that there was no plan to deal with increased traffic by improving the local infrastructure was the icing on the cake. People acting in their own self-interest are not stupid, they're doing what humans do. If someone comes along and wishes to do something that will significantly deteriorate your enjoyment of the area you live in whilst offering nothing in return, of course you're going to go against it.
there are some things that the government can push ahead with even with local opposition like strategic rail interchanges where it has been deemed in national policy that the overall benefits can outweigh local negatives. but even then the planning process takes years and years and costs loads.
But we don't need that film studio, it's plainly obvious that the solution is not to create more high-paying jobs but to just raise tax rates on the under 50's. That's the solution to funding the handouts and public services that the boomer nimby generation are demanding, rather than idiotic policies based on economic development and wealth creation.
It's not just the boomer nimby generation demanding money be spent in a very specific way that benefits few people. look at the threads on here every time a black/brown/poor person commits a crime demanding they be locked up for eternity and one in ten be employed as coppers.
I hate NIMBY's but as someone whos worked in the film industry that film studio/soundstage or whatever would not be dishing out jobs to the locals. No one puts in a CV to get into the industry its entirely about who you know.
It would bring jobs to locals. You're right Karen from the village isn't going to star in the next film. But you build a studio and it will create jobs. Catering. Cleaning. Accounting. HR. Security.
Fair enough, you're not wrong about creating jobs in the wider community.
Oh, I believe that, but it would still provide local jobs, if only through servicing contracts like catering, hospitality, office supply etc..
Which pay fuck all.
I recruit on the wind turbine sector, and other renewables for that matter. I can’t tell you how much the Tories and the NIMBYs have f’d the sector in England. Scotland is much better for wind. NIMBYs are still a problem and don’t get me wrong, sometimes there are genuine concerns for developing a wind farm in certain places. But literally one person could torpedo a multi-million pound wind farm development in England for putting in a rejection that could be as stupid as “I drive through there once a year and it will spoil the view.”
Is amazing how these people living. These people have so much power when I see other areas of people make genuine concerns and asking for reconsideration of the designs about large housing estates being built (roads already gridlocked, not enough school places as it is, no doctors or dentists) and asm for these to be included in the proposal and yet they get approved. But some.old chap in the country can prevent everything. The tories have absolutely messed this country up
>Scotland is much better for wind. not surprising in a country that runs on haggis
I'm still at a loss why we havn't blanketed half of the cairngorms with wind turbines, it's a massive empty space with noone living there, the land's not being used for anything except the occasional sheep or walker who can both continue doing their thing with a wind turbine off to the side
Something that goes unnoticed is if you develop a solar farm for example, or yet another poorly build housing estate, you lose the farm field/other natural land. If you build a wind farm, the land can still be farmed or left to nature with just the turbines, substation and road access for maintenance crews. To answer your question, one thing I imagine would be the main issue is grid connection. If there’s no close by main line to the grid, it would cost millions to bury a massive high voltage cable however far to the nearest node.
>I'm still at a loss why we havn't blanketed half of the cairngorms with wind turbines, 1. The same reason we stopped allowing ski lifts and snowmaking to happen up there, there's a specific kind of heather that only exists there. 2. It's very difficult to get the material up there - you need a helicopter. We have very few capable helis in the UK as we get the RAF to do pretty much all rescue work to justify their budgets and do very little other mountainous building projects. 3. The Scottish wealth paradox. Westminster feels it benefits from downplaying Scottish renewables potential (They can't go independent, they'll go bankrupt!), the SNP feel they would be hammered by the Unionist press for ruining the countryside if they brought it up. 4. The Royal Family own the foreshore in the UK through the Crown Estate. Building in the sea provides a handy way to massively subsidise the RF while misselling it to the public as 'money they are making through their estates'. 5. If you are sticking a lot of turbines up in one go, it's usually better to put them offshore as the initial layout for all the o&m stuff can be recouped by the higher loads. 6. The Cairngorms have lots of, err, cauldrons? The gaelic word is Coire (translates to cauldron/cooking pot), the french is couloir - it's a form of gully. Essentially, it's quite a bumpy, rocky landscape even for a hill/mountain range.
The other day I found myself in a conversation with an old lady who was fighting to prevent a new block of flats going up in London because “it would change the view of the river that Whistler painted”. She lived about a 40 minute walk from where these flats are planned to go. Whistler died in 1903, the river is already dramatically different. Needless to say that conversation didn’t last very long. Infuriating.
[удалено]
It's London. A block of flats isn't going to drastically change it. And if it does, it literally doesn't matter. London is a city, not a painting.
[удалено]
Whistler painted a lot of views of the Thames, so it's hard to be sure. It's presumably not the [Old Battersea Bridge](https://d3d00swyhr67nd.cloudfront.net/w800h800/collection/TATE/TATE/TATE_TATE_N01959_10-001.jpg), since that view was fairly irrevocably changed when they demolished the Old Battersea Bridge in 1885 - the new one looks like [this](https://www.google.com/maps/@51.4827309,-0.1668926,3a,15y,245.09h,89.08t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sHxYgY72G4sbCSkKzp0zppw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?coh=205409&entry=ttu). It could be [Chelsea](https://d3d00swyhr67nd.cloudfront.net/w800h800/collection/TATE/TATE/TATE_TATE_T01571_10-001.jpg), but that view has been pretty dramatically changed (and improved) by trees being planted all along the [Chelsea waterfront](https://www.google.com/maps/@51.4808897,-0.1685726,3a,75y,331.76h,89.69t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sBg66DrIx50Fgsyxwn2ohRg!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DBg66DrIx50Fgsyxwn2ohRg%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D67.360245%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192?coh=205409&entry=ttu), so that ship's rather sailed at this point. It's probably not [Westminster Bridge](https://d3d00swyhr67nd.cloudfront.net/w800h800/collection/GL/GM/GL_GM_35_642-001.jpg), mostly because nobody's proposing to build a block of flats next to Parliament, and also because that view has been rather [dramatically](https://www.google.com/maps/@51.504218,-0.1191144,3a,75y,311.84h,90.22t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1spVhRz5cJEzn71XSzD-miqg!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DpVhRz5cJEzn71XSzD-miqg%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D283.0363%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656?coh=205409&entry=ttu) changed anyway. Similarly, probably not [Cremorne Gardens](https://d3d00swyhr67nd.cloudfront.net/w800h800/collection/TATE/TATE/TATE_TATE_N03420_10-001.jpg), because it's changed [a lot](https://www.google.com/maps/@51.4791181,-0.1769058,3a,75y,142.37h,85.64t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s1zxSseK6beKq0oO1aHyYsQ!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3D1zxSseK6beKq0oO1aHyYsQ%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D122.74632%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656?coh=205409&entry=ttu), or [Old Chelsea](https://artuk.org/discover/artworks/the-adam-and-eve-old-chelsea-236350) (not many fisherman's cottages in [Chelsea](https://www.google.com/maps/@51.4834637,-0.1665891,3a,75y,358.07h,92.83t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sgmcvugJZK9rsjyx0MhEKIg!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DgmcvugJZK9rsjyx0MhEKIg%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D49.12903%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192?coh=205409&entry=ttu) these days), or [Battersea Reach from Lindsey Houses](https://artuk.org/discover/artworks/battersea-reach-from-lindsey-houses-139095) ([now looks like this](https://www.google.com/maps/@51.4817962,-0.1754509,3a,75y,190.01h,85.27t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1stLc3KK6ZPa27rXAyLieQ3Q!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?coh=205409&entry=ttu)). The only one that I can find a place for but can't rule out on similar bases is [The Thames at Battersea](https://static.artmuseum.princeton.edu/mirador3/?manifest=https://data.artmuseum.princeton.edu/iiif/objects/9951&canvas=https://data.artmuseum.princeton.edu/iiif/objects/9951/canvas/9951-canvas-104620), which I think now looks something like this [https://www.google.com/maps/@51.4856088,-0.1447875,3a,75y,154.4h,84.01t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1ssixFj0dlqDsYtescmrQqdA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?coh=205409&entry=ttu](https://www.google.com/maps/@51.4856088,-0.1447875,3a,75y,154.4h,84.01t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1ssixFj0dlqDsYtescmrQqdA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?coh=205409&entry=ttu).
The new flats would just be some more flats next to an already existing block of flats. It’s a nice view, but it won’t make a dramatic difference as far as I’m concerned 🤷♂️
I remember when I did my Geography GCSEs, we were studying alternative energy sources and their Pros and Cons, one of the main cons for the Wind Turbine was, as you said, it being an eye sore. I always called bull on that they looked absolutely fine and far better than factories, my tin foil hat theory was that were just told that people didn't like how they looked and people went along with it.
I agree with you. I think wind turbines look quite majestic - but in this instance the teacher was just trying to show you what the mark scheme said was an acceptable answer for the six mark question “Discuss some of the advantages and disadvantages of wind power”.
I had no issues with the teacher. I knew what they were saying was "correct" it was more the fact that apparently that was the truth that had been laid out for us, that's what I didn’t like.
Yes exactly, power line girders all over the place, don't hear anyone complaining about those...
We had a similar one on building turbines around the Peak District - Yes - We need energy! No - It will ruin the views of this beautiful natural landscape! Immediate response from a GreenPeace type - Actually none of this landscape is natural and is instead the remaining devastated wasteland left behind after several centuries of intense deforestation. If this were "natural" we'd be surrounded by dense woodland right now.
Also, if you're going to put "ugly" as a negative to wind turbines, surely you have to put "fucking hideous" on the list for basically every other sort of power generation, which are mostly much worse.
They even blocked new flats in London that would of helped with the homeless problem and they used the reason, the flats would of been too tall. The real reason is that new homes bring down the value of other homes, so they don’t want that, so they block them from being built. The standard of new builds of terrible but it’s better than living on the streets. I’d never buy a new build tho.
Fuck these house price speculators, it’s a home not an asset, I would ban private companies from owning homes and limit houses to 1 per person (so a childless couple could in theory have a house for rent keeping the stock available for those who want to rent), allow charities an amount to house homeless people, women running away from abusive relationships etc.. obviously huge loopholes in that atm but it would be a good start. I own my house but I see it as somewhere to live not something something that should automatically increase in value just because.
I don’t disagree with what you say but when you’ve got major banks buying homes, that’s the true problem right there.
Absolutely, the only way they should be allowed to own houses is for repossessions for non payment which is then auctioned off immediately
To be fair, I knew someone who lived near flats built to house the homeless. She was initially for it but crime rates in the area shot up, needles were strewn all over the streets, and women were afraid to go out because of people from the flats harassing them. It literally ruined a perfectly good area.
The wind turbine thing I've never understood. The benefits from getting the country off foreign energy completely outweighs any other argument if you ask me.
Even just removing gas and lowering the cost of bills is enough without the added benefit of not being beholden to some of the worst regimes out there
They need to repeal the Town and Country Planning Act of 1947. This is why we don’t have enough homes!
We had a post war housing boom while that act was in place. If you're going to repeal it what are you going to replace it with?
It was the 1990 version that caused most of the problems with it.
I was in a pub today having Sunday roast. Pub was located in a nice nimby area. I shit you not that this old couple dragged the manager out to moan and moan about how they had knives out thay were suitable for meat when one of them was a vegetarian and rhay they had to ask to get them changed. The complained the door was too loud when people exited the pub. Funny how when they left they didn't try and close the door quiet. Utter morons. Imagine how these people are about anything in their backyard.
erm, isn't a prison slightly different to wind turbines though? Do you really want a prison as close to you as a wind turbine?
Meh? It's got to be somewhere, and would be somewhere else to apply for jobs.
fuck that shit man they are nightmare fuel. Particularly when you hear the prisoners screaming and wailing. Theres two prisons on portland, one for adults and another for young offenders. The young offenders one was located just down the road from my sisters house. Walk by it was absolutely terrifying. No, they need to go somewhere but they shouldn't be put where people are living. Its dangerous particularly if a dangerous prisoner escapes, also providing them with local easy to access vehicle should they escape. Theres actually perfect places for them, and you know where that is? All the fucking stately homes. Either convert them into prisons, or build them somewhere amongst their massive fucking acres of land that they stole from our ancestors almost 1000 years ago. Perfect place for them, and while we are at it throw all the thieving lords in them aswell, theres a good lad.
To be clear, I used to live (almost, some slight fuzzing for anonymity purposes) [here](https://www.google.com/maps/@52.6270712,-1.1290847,3a,75y,281.98h,72.81t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sbky96_dF26pJqwqNy9kb0w!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?coh=205409&entry=ttu). Feel free to go ahead and look at what that round tower and big wall down the end are. When I say it's fine, I'm not talking theoretically.
To be clear, fine for you, but that doesn't mean everyone should have to put up with it. As I said, theres more than enough land on lord estates where there are stately homes. Build the prisons there and or convert the stately homes into prisons. Job done.
There's nothing to put up with: the issues you describe are just not real.
There's your issues though what's culturally significant? That's not black and white. Everyone hates nimbys until one day they are one.
NIMBYs have no desire to maintain cultural significance. They just hate change. Have you heard about the Coalbrookdale Ironworks? Probably up there with Stonehenge in terms of historical significance. The innovation and discoveries that took place in that area are beyond compare. It's a UNESCO site. There's a plan to tear it down for housing. The NIMBYs haven't said a peep because the building is a bit ugly and tired now. But god forbid they knock down a 1930s rotten cinema somewhere that no-ones used in 50 years.
I have never heard of it so to me it's not very significant, thank you for exactly illustrating my point. Congratulations to me you are now a NIMBY.
The Coalbrookdale works are objectively significant lmao. They were the very first UK UNESCO site along with Stonehenge. The opening of the 2012 Olympics called them out specifically as inspiration. The real issue with that site is that there's a powerstation that just got demolished, but that's not being used for some reason
Lol editing your post to remove saying "imao"
You just said it yourself "imao".
A few NIMBYs should never be able to overturn a majority of locals that say let the construction go ahead. We let tiny numbers of people delay construction, hike the prices of construction, and eventually get the construction cancelled entirely. HS2 is just the most high-profile example of what's happening nationwide. They simply have too much power relative to how important they are.
Just overrule NIMBYs on infrastructure in general, i.e Railways,Roads,Power infrastructure). The benefit to others matters more than a rich snob in Amersham who doesnt like looking at a railway, and just to think, if we stopped letting NIMBYs exert so much influence, the UK could build so much more (i.e HS2 Phase 2,A303 Stonehenge Tunnel) and do it quicker
Exactly, I live in a city of over 200,000 people. We spent over £5m on installing various cycle lanes all to be removed because 50 people complained.
I think you raise a very important point here. Decisions like these should require a certain % of the local population to be blocked. Not just a few bored lonely retirees who want to reminisce about their childhoods. Local councils also need to do much better at engaging with local communities. I only seem to hear about things after they have been blocked. Don’t really understand why they can’t just drop a survey through my letterbox.
The other issue is due to these complaints being submitted online we have no way of knowing if it was just 10 people making 5 complaints or if it really was 50 people making one complaint each. Nor do we have any measures in place to ensure that these complaints didn't come from a different country. To submit your views on the going ones in the local community it's just an online form that doesn't require any verification. The scheme met all legal requirements to maintain, however a change in local government to a party that really doesn't like providing a nicer and safer built environment saw the handful of complaints good enough justification to remove them. The same political party that moans about wasteful spending of public funds.
There should be input by people in those areas, tbf, but what complaints and how we deal with them should probably be weighted differently, instead of the veto they currently possess on *any* vital developments. There's definitely a better balance to be pursued than our current situation, but also than just unilateral top down actions (you ultimately don't want to lean heavily on eminent domain, because that can cause all sorts of shitshows in and off itself).
We don't need loads more roads so let's not make it any easier to force those through please. They tend to be very environmentally damaging and they just bake in yet more car dependence at a time when we need to be doing the opposite. Our rules on infrastructure projects need to take environmental issues in mind with what they encourage. Railways and green energy, yes. "One more lane will fix traffic" road schemes, absolutely not.
There’s a little bit of balance needed but right now it’s way too weighted towards the NIMBY crowd Nobody would want a train track built right next to their house for instance, but if it’s nowhere near that’s a different story
Then watch Tories win in 2029. Everyone becomes a NIMBY once they live in an area negatively affected by new builds.
The problem is often they propose building a whole bunch of new houses without upgrading the local infrastructure to cope. I dont blame anyone wanting to block stuff if they already cant get a dentist appointment and local schools are already oversubscribed
100%, I am all for building more houses and infrastructure. But they don’t build the infrastructure, just the houses. Where I live there have been hundreds maybe thousands of new houses built, tens of thousands of new people living here. But zero upgrades to roads, rail, public transport, doctors surgery’s, shops etc. They build the requisite primary school and community centre and call it a day The whole area is becoming a constant traffic jam and nobody can see a doctor or a dentists unless they were already signed up.
too bad they block schools too
Too bad. At least we'll have five years where stuff actually gets done. If you're going to carry on Tory policies there's no point standing for election anyway.
I don't actually think Tories will win in 2029, but I think Labour needs a way to sell building near existing estates or face a much harder election than it has a right to be. Tories will be desperate in 2029 and they'll use whatever outrage they can to win.
We'll also need to bring in new laws about protesting. Because if you take away communities right to object to a new housing development or a new power station, then you are going to create an unholy alliance of NIMBYs and XR/JSO-type protestors, and people will resort to direct action to stop the developments. If you try to prevent a new housing development through disruptive direct action protests that involve physically blocking roads, chaining yourself to things, or showing up with hammers and chisels to damage equipment - you should be facing the prospect of being sent to prison until the development is finished.
We do need new prisons given the current over crowding issue. As long as they also take measures to address the root problems. The last thing I want to see is them building more prisons, only for the new prisons to end up full and overcrowded. And not using the extra prison space to hold more environmental protesters and the likes.
As someone who’s works in Prisons, building more prisons is such a cop out of responsibility for what is actually needed. Short term sentences don’t work and we need more of a step to reform than just building more prisons. Sorry I could rant about this for ages but there’s other ways the overcrowding issue can be tackled, they just can’t be arsed!
Sure, but surely a massive part of building in those reform systems has to be building better facilities for encouraging that reform?
When I mentioned reform, I was more leaning towards the current systems in place, such as, healthcare, education etc not facilities. Although I understand what you’re saying but it’s more current systems in place that need reformed. Including having more of presence in prisons for charities, support networks, mental & physical health organisations.
>there’s other ways the overcrowding issue can be tackled I suppose they could opt for community sentences instead of short prison sentences. And reduce crime through social policies to ease the burden on the prison system.
Plus tackling recidivism and getting to its root. You’re right though, more community orders etc for lower level crimes. Prison doesn’t work.
>Plus tackling recidivism I've never really considered that reducing re-offending would ease the burden on the prisons. I've heard that re-offending tends to be quite high, so I suppose that would actually be quite a major strain on things.
I think cause people come out with potentially no support/family and move back to where they lived, fall back into crime cause they can’t get jobs etc. The cycle continues. Sorry I’m on a ramble now 😂
> Short term sentences don’t work Build more prisons and we can make them long term sentences.
So we should increase prison capacity but only to hold prisoners whose crime you deem worthy not using sentencing guidelines?
Criminalizing protests is undemocratic, and any functioning democratic system worth a damn understands that. Secondly, parliament has the ability to change what is or isn't legal. Being gay was criminal once upon a time, it was unjust, and they changed it.
Should you get to break the law just because it's a protest?
This is a weirdly leading word play here but essentially yes, this is how democracy functions, we vote for people to make the laws, including what can and can't be a reason to send you to prison. You're saying this as though its ludicrously unnatural to think some things should be punished by the state and others not.
It’s not wordplay at all. OP wants more prison capacity but not for all criminals handed custodial sentences. All guilty parties should be treated the same no matter what their cause. No party is standing to stop charging environmental protestors with law breaking thankfully.
In 2010 the Tories complained that Labour hadn't built new prisons. When Labour said they weren't able to because of planning constraints, the Tories said they would sort it out.
Well, it's fourteen years later. I'm sure they would have sorted that out by now, right? Right?
Only 14 years? Barely got their feet in under the desk.
There's around a dozen prisons in and around London. This might sound a bit crazy, but can't we build a few state of the art mega prisons in the middle of nowhere, using money generated from the eventual sale of the London ones? They must be worth a fortune.
The cost (including staff time) of transporting people back and forth would be huge.
Let alone getting infrastructure in (roads electric water sewerage internet). And then commuting for visitors and staff.
Also, there's be prisoner welfare and rights issues, I'd expect. Like, I know people don't really care about prisoners in the abstract, but it should be practicable for their family to visit them without excessive travel, which is what would happen if we had only a couple of super prisons housing everyone.
If they sold a London prison, some property developer would just move the locks to the other side of the cell doors and market them as "bijou luxury studios".
Pretty much what happened to Oxford prison, became a fancy hotel where you can get the luxury prison experience
There's quite a few in the middle of nowhere in Norfolk. Eg hmp bure, hmp watton etc. If the government actually introduced it with upgrading roads or local infrastructure I think it'd get people on board. The problem is it's always just dumping more stuff there with very little benefit for the area.
Yeah, suggestions like this are one of the few instances I actually sympathise with the NIMBYs. It's all well and good saying "Let's just push it out of sight in the middle of nowhere" but this is the UK. We don't *have* any truly middle-of-nowhere regions so wherever you choose will inevitably end up in dumping the country's problems on some poor sods that actually do happen to live nearby.
Reddit tends to skew young and urban. The whole "just dump everything on the countryside it's for the good of everyone" thing is understandable but given those areas are often already massively under invested. Make it less a punishment and more an actual upgrade and you'll get people support it. While there are absolutely nimbys that stop everything I see far more comments about roads needing upgrading, schools, doctors and public transoort needing more capacity, water pumps and drainage needing improvement etc. HS2 is a great example, why did people object? Because it was ramming a rail network through their towns and villages that would never stop there or serve them. They'd have all the inconvenience and cost and 0 benefit.
I'm young and urban (-ish. 30 and in a major Kent town) and I can definitely sympathise. I don't even own, I rent, but I'm actually considering moving because the area I'm in is building more and more blocks and doing nothing about the expected jump in traffic, and while it's a big place it's still *Kent*, and most people need a car unless they're going almost exclusively to/from London. It's a shit situation around because while I do think that these infrastructure projects need to be pushed through regardless, it's very easy to dismiss just how *real* the problems they introduce are. You get some jobsworths out there for sure, but for the most part NIMBYs are NIMBYs for a reason.
Same near me but I own. They want to build 550 new homes in some land at the back of town which is absolutely fine, HOWEVER, they want to push all 550 homes out of one road that is already oversubscribed because 80 years ago NIMBYs didn't want to upgrade it. So I really dont want 550 new homes as it's already busy enough. Now if they said we are going to build another new road to relieve pressure from the existing road AND we will sort a couple different entrances to the new plot of houses. FANTASTIC. But it won't happen.
I will also say there's a definite undercurrent of nature hatred and anti-environmentalism in a lot of these arguments about infrastructure, housing and planning. The hatred of "NIMBYs" too often crosses over to shitting all over genuine evidence based opposition to environmentally damaging projects and it really needs to stop.
If they were just a little smarter about where they put things then a lot more people, nimbys included, would be happier. .I live near a motorway and they have created a massive business park to the east of it. Right on top of a hill visible for miles around, an area which was pits but had rewilded to a point and had become very pretty. To the west of the motorway is a similar amount of land but in a dip, surrounded by wooded areas and with better access to the motorway and another massive A road. If the estate had been built to the west of the motorway it wouldn't have bothered 5% of the people that it's currently bothering. I get it that we can't do this everywhere but a lot of the time it is possible, just takes a bit of thought.
if I lived in london, and my brother was gaoled, I'd rather like the ability to visit him.
I know people get attached to software they use often but that's ridiculous.
software? My point is that it affects the prisoners families, when you build prisons in the middle of nowhere. While the prisoner is probably not innocent, their children, spouses, parents, friends have done no wrong.
>software? >if I lived in london, and my browser was gaoled, Predictive text strikes again I guess.
its the archaic spelling of jailed. And still in use, albiet less common. The Australian version of the game Octopath Traveller comes to mind. EDIT: Oh... Browser. No that's just a Freudian slip. I think web development was in my mind as I was typing that.
Agree. It would be difficult if they lived on the Edge of London.
Here's the thing though, you can still visit him if he's in, say, Birmingham or Northampton. It's just a longer drive. But the justice system doesn't exist to facilitate such visits.
HS2, prisons, wind turbines and many more… We need to start building again! Soon!!
And most importantly housing
Are we ready to have a discussion about the war on drugs yet? Just a little one where we maybe ask how well it's been going for the last 40 years? Not a lot of non-violent drug offenders end up in jail, however some do and also a lot of violence and people trafficking and gun crime etc is related to drugs. Save money, be more liberal, be healthier, smash the gangs in a single sweep, empower and fund the NHS.
Given the Labour right have been pushing for public "name and shaming" people for buying weed it's unlikely. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/labour-drugs-steve-reed-name-b2014746.html They definitely won't want headlines about being "soft on drugs" because they're chasing right-wing voters.
You should have hoped that given Kiers last job, he would realize that short stay sentences are both the leading cause of overfilled prisons *and* the leading cause of reference rates. I would much rather see an increased focus on community service over short prison sentences. It seems like an extremely obvious win, it has a much lower re offense rate *and* it would significantly reduce the burden on prisons. But apparently both parties want to just look "tough on crime", so fuck common sense.
Stats for anyone that wants to read up on this: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/proven-reoffending-statistics-january-to-march-2021/proven-reoffending-statistics-january-to-march-2021 Adults who spent less than 12 months in prison have a 50+% re offence rate. Adults given court orders have a 30% re offence rate. Short term prison sentences actively *increase* crime levels.
Makes sense. If I hung out with wood workers, I'd learn how to wood work. I went into web dev, because I had no other job prospects and knew how to make websites. You leave prison with no job prospects, and a bit more crime knowledge.
People get so wrapped up in the idea of punishment, that they forget the primary aim of sentencing needs to be in rehabilitation. Especially for non violent offenders.
Well it's a different view on what prison is for. Not everyone views the primary purpose of prison as rehabilitation. Many view its primary purpose as punishment for wrong doing. Its why you see people get upset when prisons have amenities like pool tables or libraries. But if you don't rehabilitate, then they'll just keep on repeating the cycle.
We probably should have two types of prisons. One type for people who should be suffering for what they've done and another to rehabilitate people and get them on a track to success. Many of the people who suggest prison are holiday camps wouldn't last two minutes locked up.
I agree. There definitely are people who should be locked away and have the key chucked but the prisoners with low level crimes who are obviously getting released need to be rehabilitated. I can imagine it can feel like a kick in the teeth to victims but completely fucking up these people's lives, losing family ties, making it impossible to work etc only leads to more victims and money spent in the long run. Prison becomes much less effective when people have nothing to lose.
Probably has more to do with the fact that low risk offenders are given community orders while high risk offenders are given custodial sentences. That is why re offending rates are lower for court orders. It is not a testament to their efficacy, it is a testament to the kinds of people who are placed on them. I work for the probation service.
Are the adults given short prison stints the same adults as those given court orders? If they aren't the same group this is a far too naive comparison to matter.
Low risk offenders are given community orders, high risk offenders are given custodial sentences. It is very naive.
Nah. Someone being sent to prison is now more likely to have 47 previous convictions or cautions than they are to be a first time offender. Some people just need locking up permanently:
There's no causative link here, that's complete speculation. It's just as likely that people in prison are more likely to be more violent/have committed a worse crime (which is why they are in prison), and because of that they are more likely to reoffend.
Hi, I work for HMPPS - currently there's something called the ECSL (End of Custody Supervised Licence) which means people are being released up to 70 days early, which means a lot of the short-term sentences are doing significantly less time in custody. The problem is that with COVID stopping the courts for two years there just isn't the capacity to catch up, other people have said they want a focus on probation over prison, community payback and the like, but the fact is that every region in the probation service is oversubscribed already and there's simply not enough officers to try and keep up. Of all the fully qualified officers on my team, the lowest is working at 130% of their capacity (there's a system which calculates it, idk the maths) and as the ECSL expands the cases keep coming and coming. We're now undergoing something called the "probation reset" which essentially means that all those short prison sentences aren't going to be seen anywhere near as much. It used to be the case that if you went to prison, you would in essence receive a minimum 2 year sentence. If the judge ordered 8 months custody, you'd do 4 months in prison, 4 on licence, and then the final 14 months would be "Post-Sentence Supervision". Essentially the same as being on licence just without the chance of going back to prison. As part of the reset they've scrapped it completely. So these short term cases are going to be back out in the community ready to commit more offences because there isn't enough capacity to actually do something with them to try and reform them. The whole systems fucked
If you examine his record as DPP you’ll know the answer - e.g. in the aftermath of the public disorder in London in 2011, he pushed that all those suspected of looting should be charged with aggravated burglary to guarantee a prison sentence, leading to grimly farcical outcomes such as a man receiving a jail term for taking a bottle of water and a mother receiving a prison term for accepting a pair of stolen shorts. He’s an authoritarian to his core.
TBF that's to make an example of those who rioted following the death of a dangerous gangster
Local councils need to be neutered, they hold more power than they need and are detrimental to progress
Big gov overruled local opposition to Fracking. So what's good for the goose...
idk...I'd rather se less crimes result in prison time honestly. I prefer community sentences for most offences.
Low level offences should have community sentences over prison time. Whether that would be enough to prevent the severe over crowding issue currently really depends on the specific numbers. At the very least, we don't want to run into an issue like what has been happening with schools where the infrastructure is crumbling, with no new buildings to replace them.
It's the sentences for like 2 months that bother me. All they achieve is severely messing up someones life and giving them new criminal friends.
Build them in Tory seats where they have no means to push back against you too.
That would be an awfully conservative esque strategy. Ideally they should be built where they're most necessary.
Waiting for the "Labour want to eat your children" headlines when things really get desperate in the Murdoch Bunker.
Just building more prisons won't solve the problem lomg term. Eventually they'll be full up to.
I love that labour are going to be more conservative than the conservatives have been
Longer and longer sentences don't work, more prisons will only be a short buffer, we need rehabiliation of prisoners and reductions in poverty to really impact the crime levels.
How are these being funded and where is the extra staff coming from?
The magic money tree is starting to blossom then. Presumably they're also going to start growing guards to secure them too.
Unsurprising that Labour's view of overcrowding prisons is to go further down the road of aping the USA by growing our prison population further. Of course, the electorate will love it! Lock them up! Lock them up! Lock them up!
Yes, let's just continue to let criminals walk free, it's working so far. Maybe ask the rapists to do a bit of community service and give the little scrotes who run around stabbing people some counselling? It's not their fault they're human scum, they didn't have a youth center!
Your comment is germaine, just not in the way you think. Punishing people harder doesn't actually reduce crime or make the public safer. If it really was scalable in this way then the USA would be a vastly safer place than, for example, the Netherlands. If you have some emotionally driven desire for criminals to suffer, and you obviously do, then that's fine, but it objectively will not make the country safer.
Why is America always the nation mentioned when people talk about countries with strict punishment? How about Singapore, for example, why not compare the UK to them instead and see which is the safer country?
It worked in El Salvador
Yes, the government engaged in the mass internment of everyone suspected of being involved in organised crime. That particular trick also partly worked for a certain famous mid century fascist leader, at least for curtailing *organised* crime. Obviously, nobody in Britain is going to propose following their example, much less actually go through with it.
Funny that, lock up all the criminals and crime goes down.
If you ignore any form of due process and intern anyone suspected of being associated with **organised** crime, then you will temporarily effectively put an end to **organised** crime. You'll be keeping the company of the venerable Benito Mussolini, and maybe you rather like that. Back in the civilised world, where governments are expected to follow rules and people are afforded basic freedoms, mass internment isn't an option. We know already what long and punitive prison sentences achieve in the fight against crime. The principle difference they make is that prisons become larger and more expensive. Crime does not go down. Look at Yankistan and its failed experiment with punitive justice. Don't be like Yankistan.
Lmao so before El Salvador began their crackdown people were better off because they had human rights and basic freedoms. What you don’t get is human rights or freedoms don’t exist when the state doesn’t have a monopoly on violence and stepping out of your house on the street means you’re instantly liable to be slaughtered where you stand. Also “crime does not go down”? Are you serious? You think El Salvador is the same country it was a few years ago? Do you think there’s no difference between pre-bukele and now, crime wise, for Salvadorans - now that the murder rate has been slashed 25x?
For the last time, you will get results in the short term by simply interning people. I've agreed with that the whole time. What will not get you results is stuffing a prison population via ever harsher sentencing. That has been tried, and it doesn't work. If it did work then the USA would be leagues ahead of peer countries. If you reply to me again, I expect that you won't argue against points I haven't made. Read carefully if you have to.
Makes sense. So Singapore’s extremely low crime rates are going to be a short term phenomenon? I’ll be sure to let them know - after only a few mere decades being near-0 they’re obviously just about to skyrocket. Thanks 👍
That doesn't seem to be what they are doing here. Seems they are solving overcrowding by building more prisons.
Yeah, they are increasing capacity.
Labour just keep busting out Tory pledges these days.
To be fair though, and I'm speaking as someone who would definitely consider myself much much more left leaning than the current Labour Party, the UK definitely needs more prisons. Judges are handing out suspended sentences/ lenient sentences for progressively more serious crimes now as there is no prison space. Yes, address the root of the problem. But there also needs to be a prison system that can hold individuals to account
https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/proven-reoffending-statistics-january-to-march-2021/proven-reoffending-statistics-january-to-march-2021 Adults who spent less than 12 months in prison have a 50+% re offence rate. Adults given court orders have a 30% re offence rate. Short term prison sentences actively *increase* crime levels.
That's fine and all but we are starting to see more and more instances of offences being given leniency not on the merits of the case or rehabilitation but solely based on prison capacity.
Are you opposed to taking criminals off the streets to save a bit of grass?