Patrick Ryan of Preston Lancashire (aka Rogue ‘n’ Nosh), is a man who has committed over 650 crimes (that he's been caught for), and just carries on committing them. He even commits crimes immediately he is released from prison. For example one was committed on his way home, after release from Barlinne Prison in Scotland, to Preston England. Apart from his normal run of the mill crimes (often fuelled by his alcoholism), which mostly consist of ordering food and drink he can't pay for in restaurants, he is also a registered sex offender.
His criminal record is so long that it comes to over 100 printed pages, and police try to no longer print it out more than once, to save paper. He had already served more than 23 years behind bars before the age of 50, but has carried on committing offences and is now in his 60's. It is estimated that he has cost the country over £3m plus in prison costs alone. Police and court time probably pushes the figure past £4m.
But this idiot is not alone. A homeless man, who had breached an anti-social behaviour order around 45 times, was estimated to have cost the taxpayer more than £2 million, and has re-offended since that figure was calculated. In fact a huge proportion of police and court costs are wasted dealing with a relatively small number of persistent offenders. A persistent offender is loosely defined as a person who commits six or more indications of criminal activity over a two-year period.
Strangely it's reported that at least one in ten of the country's most "prolific and priority offenders" come from Greater Manchester, and that figure is only matched by the number of these offenders originating from London, according to recent statistics.
In all there are an estimated 15,000 persistent repeat criminals in the UK, and who commit a large proportion of the UK's crimes. This figure is estimated as being between 18 and 20 per cent of all crimes committed. These offenders are nearly all addicted to alcohol, and or drugs, and which seem to be the drivers for most of their criminal activity.
If the courts really cracked down on this sort of behaviour, with ever longer sentences for this persistent hardcore, a massive amount of distress to the public would be prevented.
Update 30th June 2018:
Patrick Ryan is back in prison again. 668 offences (and still counting), with 449 convictions. He apparently got drunk, sat on a bus, exposed himself to everyone, then sexually assaulted a woman. He finished this off by urinating in front of the passengers. He then got off the bus, got on another one and urinated again before being arrested. He got a mere 18 months (only 9 will be served in prison), and at age 62, will be out in time to commit offence number 669 before next Easter. What's the point of the courts?
 |
| England's Most Caught Thief ...... |
His criminal record is so long that it comes to over 100 printed pages, and police try to no longer print it out more than once, to save paper. He had already served more than 23 years behind bars before the age of 50, but has carried on committing offences and is now in his 60's. It is estimated that he has cost the country over £3m plus in prison costs alone. Police and court time probably pushes the figure past £4m.
But this idiot is not alone. A homeless man, who had breached an anti-social behaviour order around 45 times, was estimated to have cost the taxpayer more than £2 million, and has re-offended since that figure was calculated. In fact a huge proportion of police and court costs are wasted dealing with a relatively small number of persistent offenders. A persistent offender is loosely defined as a person who commits six or more indications of criminal activity over a two-year period.
Strangely it's reported that at least one in ten of the country's most "prolific and priority offenders" come from Greater Manchester, and that figure is only matched by the number of these offenders originating from London, according to recent statistics.
In all there are an estimated 15,000 persistent repeat criminals in the UK, and who commit a large proportion of the UK's crimes. This figure is estimated as being between 18 and 20 per cent of all crimes committed. These offenders are nearly all addicted to alcohol, and or drugs, and which seem to be the drivers for most of their criminal activity.
If the courts really cracked down on this sort of behaviour, with ever longer sentences for this persistent hardcore, a massive amount of distress to the public would be prevented.
Update 30th June 2018:
Patrick Ryan is back in prison again. 668 offences (and still counting), with 449 convictions. He apparently got drunk, sat on a bus, exposed himself to everyone, then sexually assaulted a woman. He finished this off by urinating in front of the passengers. He then got off the bus, got on another one and urinated again before being arrested. He got a mere 18 months (only 9 will be served in prison), and at age 62, will be out in time to commit offence number 669 before next Easter. What's the point of the courts?
One course of action may be for the courts to crack down on this sort of behaviour, another would be to put more resources into mental health and poverty which isn't currently possible because big business is too occupied in avoiding paying their share.
ReplyDeleteIf eight people didn't hold half the Worlds wealth these desperate people may not feel quite so desperate and they may be able to find jobs which pay a living wage and not have to rely on benefits from the rest of society to cover their rent and pay their childcare.
There will always be a few at the bottom of society who are a drain through their flawed behaviour but perhaps this side of the bell curve is less of a problem than the other where flawed behaviour siphons off not £millions but £billions and generates injustice, poverty and resentment, the commodities which actually trickle down in this economy.
If China and India had fairer social policies instead of socialist feudalism then the 50 per cent figure would be far lower.
DeleteIn any event it's a red herring as the post is talking about persistent offenders in the UK. These are driven by addiction rather than absolute poverty.
Take a look at your local newspapers and see the real world and not what the lefties at the guardian think.
For that statistic to change something has to be done about the wealth held by the 8, raising 1 billion people's wages won't change that figure at all. A billion people would be better off which would be a good thing, but it wouldn't change that statistic or the corrupt and corrosive system which allows a few people to dominate the World economy. Apparently you think that social feudalism is wrong in the East but you're OK with capitalist feudalism in the West.
DeleteIt's not a red herring because the post cites 15,000 people who commit a disproportionate amount of crimes in the UK but it doesn't mention the smaller minority at the other end of society who cost it a lot, lot more and who never go to prison.
You talk about the real World? How many of those responsible went to prison after the last banking crisis? Where is Sir Philip Green right now after he raped BHS then sold it for £1 ? How much has Carillion cost the Country? Let me know when one of those responsible spends a day in prison.
You need to stop doffing your cap to your betters and open your eyes.
Vroomfondel, I have to admit that having read your comments and the anonymous comment, I tend to agree with the other poster on this (sorry).
DeleteI think I have debunked some of these Oxfam claims before, but apparently not enough to stop this same report being touted again a year later ..... also citing the wealth of this mythical 8, or the top 1 per cent, is not the reason why 15,000 persistent criminals commit a large proportion of the crimes in the UK. Compared to their wealth, then I am poor as anyone else, but I don't burgle houses. Go regularly in to any 'working mens club' or similar public house in the day time, will reveal to you a number of able bodied gentlemen drinking their benefits away, and then supplementing their income via shoplifting, or chance burglary or car break in's .... in the 1970's these formed much of my clientèle in another career. I know of which I speak!
But as you have raised this again .... Its often claimed that 1 per cent of the population owns 50 per cent or 25 per cent of the wealth of the UK. Arron Banks for example stated that 50 per cent of wealth is owned by the 1 per cent in the UK, in an answer to a question on a UK TV show called Question Time on 12/01/2017. Whereas Credit Suisse’s Global Wealth Report, estimates that the top 1 per cent of the UK's rich, owned about 24 per cent of the UK’s wealth in 2016. But in 2011, the Office for National Statistics (ONS) estimated that the top 1 per cent, owned about 13 per cent of the UK’s wealth. So there is considerable dispute over the figures.
Oxfam in particular are not above using hyperbole to get press coverage e.g. On 19/01/2015 they predicted "Richest 1 per cent will own more than all the rest by 2016" .... headlines grabbed, and Oxfam publicists make smug faces as the Guardianistas run around making noises.
In fact Oxfam limited the time frame of the figures used to extrapolate their predictions, and then made some 'predictions' based on, well, no trend at all. Whereas if you take a longer view of global wealth ownership, then the global percentage of wealth owned by the top 1 per cent has hardly changed at all.
Finally, way back in time ..... 2014 to be exact, it took just £2,200 in net wealth to be in the top 50 per cent of the richest population worldwide .... hardly a mind boggling amount. In fact, assuming that personal wealth is a person's financial and non-financial assets (primarily housing and land), minus outstanding debt, then to be in the top 10 per cent of the worlds wealthy in 2014, you needed a net wealth of £46,000 (which I am sure that includes you as well as me Vroomfondel). To be one of the criminal top 1 per cent, then you needed £473,000 (Any Londoner who is debt free and owns their house will likely be in that elite bunch).
I may as well add that once you try to redistribute wealth by numbers, the money is soon dissipated, and it would be gone very quickly .... the Russian revolution ended up with poor Russians.
I leave you the last comment (or the other person if they revisit and want to reply), but I felt I should comment as well.
The idea that inequality may be a factor in the behaviour of some was neither meant as an excuse for bad behaviour nor was it the point of my comment, merely the icing on the cake in the absence of any mention of the criminals at the other end of society who cost it more and who are never brought to account.
DeleteThe exact statistics may be disputed and are more than likely exaggerated for headlines but what can't be disputed is the ever growing disparity between the rich and the poor or the obscene remunerations that bosses give themselves with no correlation to performance or reality - remunerations subsidised by the state in the form of benefits for their employees who need them because they are in turn paid subsistence wages.
No business which depends for existence on paying less than living wages to its workers has any right to continue in this country ... and by living wages I mean more than a bare subsistence level -- I mean the wages of decent living.
-Franklin D. Roosevelt, 32nd US President (30 Jan 1882-1945)
Obviously, redistributing wealth by numbers as you put it is not an option - simple decent wages means a more content and productive workforce who find themselves with disposable income which leads to more consumer spending - more business - more jobs, etc, etc.
By using private businesses the US profited out of the Space Race while the Soviet Union suffered.
I share the disgust that decent people have with these low lifes but there are always two sides to every story and it's not fair that the white collar criminals don't have their stories told just because they do it "legally" or "cleverly" (like Trump), or because they have the ear of the newspaper editors and the lawmakers.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete