I don't get this at all.

[cromwell]

So why give him a second and third opportunity to carry on?

Because the jails are full and also because the people in charge of prisons believe that putting criminals in jail "doesn't work".

[Workingman]

I watched a programme the other night where the police in Donny were targeting the ten worst shoplifters over Christmas. The perps knew the cops, and vice-versa, they were on first name terms, bosom buddies and lifelong pals.

"C'mon Billy, the sooner we get this paperwork done the sooner you get out of here and we can start all over again."

Some of the perps obviously had mental health problems, and of course they have to be handled with care, but at the same time the police have to be remote and robust in dealing with criminals otherwise what is the point?

It played out as an example of how soft the justice system has become.

[Suff]

If you are responsible for running the railways and you do not do you job and people die in an accident, you are likely to be arrested and charged by death caused by failing to carry out your responsibilities. You would be criminally liable for that.

So when the courts fail to do their job. When they let criminals go and do not punish or, in any way, restrict them. When they let dangerous rapists and murderers back out on the streets. Why are they not in the dock. Explaining why they should not go to jail for failing to carry out the responsibilities for which they are paid. Many deaths in the UK today are caused by the police, CPS and judges not doing their jobs.

They should be criminally liable. It's about time they were.

We might get a justice system which works. Instead of focusing on how much they can take from speeders......