Talk:Public-order crime

message: A little bit of Bias?
I find some issue with "The rise in cost to the state can only be met out of tax revenue, but the burden is not shared equally. Similarly, the substantial profits made by the dealers is not taxed. Thus, the citizens who declare income for tax purposes must pay more to offset the cost of drug taking in their society." It seems biased to have the word substantial in there, as the profits of a drug dealer are not sourced, and are often enough not substantial. I also wonder why the first sentance here is necessary. the tax system in the United States is unequal, so it not noteworthy that the burden of paying for anything with taxes in unequal. I recognize that this is a crimonology part of the site, not a debate over the morailty of drug dealing, but the end of this paragraph, especially the above quote, seems a bit biased to me. FalconBob 18:33, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: "==Conflict with civil liberties==
The claim of "protecting public order" or the accusation that a given person or entitiy is threatening public order has also been one of the main tools of control used by governments attempting to suppress dissent or personal freedoms that cannot be legislated against. As Amnesty International points out, "Zheng Yunsu, the leader of the Jesus Family, a Protestant community in Shandong province, is one of many people who are behind bars simply for practising their religion. He was arrested during a police raid on the community in 1992 and later sentenced to 12 years' imprisonment for "disrupting public order" and "swindling". His four sons and other members of the group were also imprisoned. Amnesty International believes they are prisoners of conscience." . Likewise, this device was used by the Soviet Union and other communist countries,  as well as by other totalitarian governments. "
This seems to be pure politics and, unless you have a source placing this in a criminology text book or article, this has no place on this page. David91 14:37, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I coud say the same thing about the politics. Please check references already in the text, you probably did not notice them the first time around. Haiduc 15:00, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Material removed

message: This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 04:23, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject class rating

message: I was under the impression that a public order offence was one that was intended to prevent violence (including preventing persons subjected to provocative behaviour from "taking matters into their own hands"). I was under the impression that public order offences were those that dealt with violence (sections 1 to 3 of the Public Order Act 1986 are respectively riot, violent disorder and affray), intimidation, threats, insults (try section 4 of the same Act), defamation (e.g. defamatory libel) and other provocative behaviour. James500 (talk) 20:27, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like a completely different definition - probably a US/UK & Commonwealth thing.  Any mention of public order offences in the British media at least will be related to breach of the peace and upwards - nothing to do with "victimless crime".  Someone who knows the details care to disambig?  62.196.17.197 (talk) 17:34, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definition 

message: tubaypaul9 2409:4061:4E04:8DD0:0:0:D9C8:5007 (talk) 10:14, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  My username