Re: Riots
 

Because the causes and remedies of social disorder go to the very heart of the differing political philosophies at play in Britain. The fact that Dave and the Giant Millipede have differing views on this issue is a sign that we have a healthy democracy with a range of views in play.

Re: Riots
 

wow the Government and Judges are going in hard :D

Re: Riots
 

Yes its great that we have a healthy democracy but a bit more cooperation on some important issues would be nice instead of parties playing political football sometimes when it would be more beneficial to work together.

Re: Riots
 

You mean less of http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2LpPy...eature=feedf ?

Re: Riots
 

[QUOTE=Saaf_laandon_mo;35288852]Just playing devil's advocate and looking at parental responsibility -

What happens to parents who have totally lost control of their children? Should they be responsible too? Let as assume that they bought their kids up as best as they could in their circumstances, and the kid still turns out to be a 'wrong un'. What then?

Does the media, school, neighbourhood have a part to play in how a child is 'bought up'?

Cany you simply assume that it's the parents fault and then how much blame can you actual put on them?[/QUOTE]


No you can't always blame them .It is still however the parents responsibility if they are under age .There are plenty of parents who try really hard but the kids still go off the rails and that does not negate their responsibility

Re: Riots
 

Yep, and soon the media will be comparing the sentences to people who got less for assault/drink driving/putting someone in a coma/fiddling expenses and stealing thousands of pounds.

Re: Riots
 

The government should be totally ashamed of this whole business, ok the riots started over a killing in Tottenham, then everything blows up.

What happens with the government, they remain on holiday, and come back slagging off the police for the way they dealt with, Then they come back and start saying that they will bring in troops, all it would have taken was one call from that puppet Cameron, and that would have the troops in, BUT, the police were dealing with it.

The police brought in all the usual officers, BUT, there again the government have cut everything, trainers the lot, there are a lot less officers now than a year ago.

He has this nice bright idea of bringing in this American guy, what can he do, American gangs are much tougher and carry guns, that they will use.

He forgets, in America he increased police NOT cut the numbers, and even today Theresa May is still going ahead with more cuts in the police - the police cannot win, its about time Cameron and Clegg got off there soapbox and started to come back to reality. To me they should both resign and let someone else do a better job - ME.

Re: Riots
 

l hearby elect you as Prime Minister then Arthur.;)

Re: Riots
 

Why? Was Cameron and Clegg out there nicking themselves a new plasma telly?

Oh really?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12296893

Less than a two percent drop. Hardly catastrophic.

Errr the gangs already do use guns. Do you really think if the Police were armed your common or garden chav or ned would magic up a lorry load of glocks?

:shocked:

Re: Riots
 

The first thing l would do would be, Anyone goes before the courts - 12 months - not suspended or community service, that's a total waste of time.

Serious crime such as Arson - 5 years, murder (such as that poor guy in Ealing) LIFE - 30 years.

Any money they earn in prison goes towards the victim family or goes into a fund which is run by a charity - NOT government run.

I would increase policing on the streets of London by double this amount. London used to be the safest place to live, it isn't anymore.

People are scared to walk the streets in safety.

I would insist that companies in the UK get contracts to create jobs - such as Bombardier - there would be no foreign companies involved unless it was a joint venture that secured jobs for the British worker, l would get the British economy working before foreign input.

If foriegn workers wanted to find work, they would have to prove that they had a job in the UK before entry, so that the british ecomomy was getting secure.

Its true what a resident said in Tottenham last week, there is no work in Tottenham so when they have the chance of looting they took it.

Re: Riots
 

Rubbish. Here is my take on the whole debacle, in the most PC way I can put it without offending a whole bunch of people.

Some hoodie who just happens to be coloured got shot because he was carrying an illegal firearm in public. Peaceful protest / shrine follows.

The other 'gangsta' masses rise up and create havoc. They get free TV's and trainers. They create a bandwagon. More and more 'gangsta' types see that they can do the same by seeing this bandwagon, they jump on it. The bandwagon goes postal...

Now, I said that I would be as PC as possible, is it just me that when i was watching the footage that the vast majority of the looters / rioters / bandwagon jumpers were coloured? Yet, they are the first ones to whinge that they are 'stop and searched'. I find it laughable.

You will probably call me out to be a racist etc, but that's what I saw and yes i have coloured friends etc etc etc

Re: Riots
 

Arthur ,the government came back off holiday as soon as the situation warranted it,and police numbers have not been cut yet as far as i know either way they aren't being cut all in one go ,it will be a gradual reduction over 4 yrs

---------- Post added at 22:05 ---------- Previous post was at 22:01 ----------


nail, head :tu:

Re: Riots
 

I noticed too.

Me too. his name is John.

Re: Riots
 

If that was the case people going through red lights would have to be bonkers to plead not guilty. :erm:
Community service and suspended sentences can be very useful sentences to have. Sadly they have been abused by giving them out to all manner of offenders regardless of their suitability.

The Met has 32,000 cops. Taking out the ones doing central and 'special' jobs you have 25,000 or so actually out on the beat doing Police work as the general public would see it.

A cop with 5 years service in London gets a salary of about £34,000 a year. Forgetting the costs involved in having stations to work them out of, Vehicles to move them about it, uniform to kit them out and all the other costs 25K times 34K in wages alone is A LOT of money. Where is that coming from?

Re: Riots
 

My friend is called Derek. :confused:

Re: Riots
 

I like the sound of this as long as these words are acted upon .For the rioters to have to face their victims and be seen to be fixing the mess they made may have a impact on some of them because of the humiliation factor ,i think it should be extended to other crimes as well


http://news.sky.com/home/politics/article/16050805

Re: Riots
 

I remember him. he was that posh one in Big Brother.

Re: Riots
 

I don't watch it on principle. But i will say hi to Derek on your behalf :p:

Re: Riots
 

You can tell his not thinking straight. will there be any cleaning up still to be done in 7 months time. or are they going to leave it till they all start coming out to do?

Re: Riots
 

I cant believe that some folk think the so called riots had a purpose, it was just people after a buzz in life (totally wrong way) but true, the same reason some rich folk shoplift.

PS. I'm sorry if that has allready been posted but I cant be bothered reading the whole thread, life is to short ;)

Re: Riots
 

There will always be something to do .Basically what they need to do is make the community service program work instead of it being the wishy washy scheme it is at present

Re: Riots
 

Some rich folk do it because they don't want to spend their money. it's actually true.

Re: Riots
 

Spot on comments mate.:tu:

---------- Post added at 22:46 ---------- Previous post was at 22:45 ----------

Err, Don`t you need people to act as a community for that to work? :erm:

Re: Riots
 

And so begins the fight back by the hand wringers

http://news.sky.com/home/uk-news/article/16051275

Re: Riots
 

Not having a go, but you might want to get out of the habit of calling black people coloured..

When I was younger, describing someone of African origin as coloured was a respectful step up from the more common descriptions used in this country, but the world has moved on since then.. For now being called black or white seems to be acceptable, but for how long is anyone's guess. I suppose it's something that isn't perfect, and will just keep evolving until there's no such distinction, but by then we'll have found something else we don't like about each other to pick on.

Anyways.. topic for another thread..

Re: Riots
 

Erm, ok. So how would you describe the proportionality of these sentences compared to MPs who got 12/16 months for fiddling expenses and were out with a quarter of time served?

Re: Riots
 

Very high, Mp's should have had far stiffer sentences than they received as a matter of principle, but you see i feel ALL sentences are to weak in this country, For instance LIFE should mean LIFE not some 10 year sentence in a hotel type room with colour telly and the offender being called MR in case it offends his human rights.

If we are to punish then we punish. Weak sentences born from liberal ideas of slapped hands and a GOOD talking to do not work in my eye's and will not stop re offending

You should know by now i don't fit in the wishy washy liberal take it easy on **** in case it upsets there human rights brigade :)

Re: Riots
 

Dave needs them to go down hard because he can't risk it hapening again. it's a deterrent to others.
but it would be nice if they thought like that with other crimes. a harsh enough sentence to deter others from doing the same.

but they don't. because it doesn't affect Daves governments laughability factor around the world.

Re: Riots
 

As long as the Council Tax in Hounslow is trebled to pay for it ;)

I'm not scared to walk the streets of my town!!

You do realise that Bombardier is a Canadian company don't you? ....oh no that would involve research beyond the tabloid newspapers..

Re: Riots
 

Fidling expenses is not anywhere near the same level as rioting and looting, so the proportionality *is* wrong. The rioters should get longer ... much longer.

Re: Riots
 

But by fiddling expenses it does not send a very good message to the rest of the country in setting a example so l believe that they should have a severe sentence on the basis that it sends a strong message to others to not commit crimes be they those crimes fraud ,rioting or any other crime.

Re: Riots
 

Excellent :rofl: at the chance of Arthur carrying out research.

---------- Post added at 12:30 ---------- Previous post was at 12:29 ----------

:tu: Same here

Re: Riots
 

Your town obviously doesn't have the required 'critical mass' of unstable elements. How about a short distance to the north of you in certain areas of Peterborough?

Re: Riots
 

my comment was a response to the generic statement that "people are afraid to walk the streets". If you take it down to certain areas of any large town or city and at night then i would be wary - but that has been the case for many years IMHO

Re: Riots
 

I think the government are going to fuel a lot of resentment over the way they are handling this .If we are going to get tough with criminals then we need to get tough on all criminals .At the moment there is a lot of anger in Britain over the riots from people who have lost everything and that is very understandable and their feelings should be taken into account ,but should not be the basis for a whole new sentencing structure which the government have now created .
The basis of our justice system is proportionality and fairness and at the moment the sentences given in some cases are way out of proportion to the crime and more importantly to similar crimes and sentences given out a week before the riots .What is going to happen when all this is over and some bored youth smashes up a bus shelter ,will they be treated as harshly or will it go back to wrist slapping liberal punishment .David Cameron has to be very careful from now on if he takes his eye off the ball then he will look like a knee jerking idiot ,plus he's going to have to build a lot more prisons

Re: Riots
 

What sentencing structure has the government now created, Marty?

Re: Riots
 

Although l am not a supporter of this government their sentencing policy is one which many people including myself will agree with.

Re: Riots
 

If this tougher stance on sentencing is going to stay the same going forward i to will be happy ;)

All we need now is for LIFE to mean LIFE for murdering scummy types

Re: Riots
 

:rolleyes:

Christ Arthur - if you ever got in power, I'd be outa this country on the first plane.

I think some others here on CF would be joining me!!

Re: Riots
 

Again, what sentencing policy are we talking about here?

Re: Riots
 

Yes in my mind life means life and not a 10 year sentence.

---------- Post added at 19:29 ---------- Previous post was at 19:27 ----------

A more hardline sentencing approach rather then the wishy washy wooly Liberal approach.

---------- Post added at 19:30 ---------- Previous post was at 19:29 ----------

Well l cannot fly abroad because of my medical condition.:D

Re: Riots
 

But the Government has not changed sentencing laws. It hasn't even amended guidance so far as I am aware.

You and Marty are applauding the courts, not the government - it is the courts that are handing down sentences, and they are doing it based on precisely the same laws and guidelines that they were using 2 weeks ago, before any riots kicked off.

Nothing has changed.

Re: Riots
 

So why is it that in todays newspaper the coalition will go ahead and cut a further 18.000 cops, what will that achieve,

We need MORE police on the streets, not less.

Re: Riots
 

They have upped the anti Chris ,before the riots stealing a bottle of water or wearing a pair of stolen shorts that the wearer did not steal would not have resulted in jail sentences ,quite possibly neither would some of the more serious crimes such as the assaults that happened.Now the government have done this they need to continue in the following months and years

Re: Riots
 

The government haven't done anything ... See my post above from a couple of minutes ago.

Re: Riots
 

So you are saying that David has not had a word in their ear then.

Re: Riots
 

As that would be grossly unconstitutional, I think it safe to assert that the Prime Minister has not privately tried to influence the sentencing procedure of any individual trial, or of trials collectively.

He has of course publicly applauded the decisions that the courts have taken, whilst being very careful always to point out that these are decisions for the courts alone.

Re: Riots
 

are you honestly telling that 2 or 3 weeks ago a woman wearing a pair of stolen shorts that she didn't steal would have got jail .The 2 lads that got 4 yrs for inciting a riot (i agree with the sentence by the way) would not have got that 3 weeks ago .Regular shop lifters don't get jail very often but someone stealing a bottle of water gets 9 months .I know that judges have always had these sentencing powers (for instance inciting a riot could get you 10yrs),for these type of crimes but rarely use them to this extent ,now because of the riots the government has told the courts to have night courts to process the criminals quicker and use their full sentencing powers .Why couldn't the government have done this before ?and will they continue?

Re: Riots
 

Yes it would be unconstitutional but he has stated that there would be severe sentences for those rioting and l am sure magistrates and judges unless they are in Timbuktu have listened or heard these remarks through the media and have took them on board and l am all for these people getting the sentences that they deserve.

Re: Riots
 

Let me join you because it would be like having Gordon Brown back in charge.

Re: Riots
 

Well something has changed. While the Judges will be sentencing according to existing guidelines I don't believe they would handed down these prison terms for the same crimes had they taken place outside of the riots. As I already said this is somewhat good, they should take into account that by participating in these riots they are helping fuel the flames for further disorder. Every one person joining in made it easier for the next to do so.

However I still think they punishments are excessive. I don't see why someone should see the inside of a prison cell for handling stolen goods or 4 years in jail for trying to start a riot via Facebook.

Re: Riots
 

I am saying nothing of the sort.

The fact that the courts are handing out stiffer sentences to rioters does not prove that the government has changed the law or the guidance that governs sentencing.

And that really is all there is to it.

---------- Post added at 19:57 ---------- Previous post was at 19:49 ----------

Who is saying otherwise? Of course context is important. Unfortunately some people have jumped to the entirely illogical conclusion that the way the courts are sentencing rioters/looters must necessarily be due to some active government participation. If true, that would be a scandal of a magnitude big enough to bring the government down.

Government can influence the courts by setting down offences and punishments in law but it cannot act to influence a case, or cases, in specific circumstances. All members of the government can do is make loud - and public - noises about the courts making use of the powers they already have, whilst carefully re-stating their intention not to unduly influence proceedings.

Ladies and gentlemen, what we are seeing this week are magistrates and circuit judges up and down the UK noting the public fear and outrage and sending some very stern messages intended to stop it happening again. Nothing more, nothing less.

Nevertheless, if a sentence is arguably too harsh, even in the context of the recent riots, the appeals process remains available to any who wish to use it.

Re: Riots
 

well i've never said they changed the law ,but as Damien said ,all of a sudden the courts are being tougher and i feel they are setting a precedent for future criminals ,and i do applaud that as long as they stick to it ,and as unconstitutional as it would be i do beleive that Cameron or at least members of his government have had a quiet word behind closed doors

Re: Riots
 

They have noted the public fear and outrage, and the demand for harsh treatment that has come from all sections of society - ministers included. They are entitled to take public outrage into account when sentencing, and they have done so. Doubtless they have heard what Cameron has said, and have correctly seen his comments for what they are - a reflection of that same public outrage.

All of this is a very different proposition than suggesting these sentences are somehow the Government's doing, either by changing the law at lightning speed or by trying quietly to abuse the historic independence of our justice system.

Re: Riots
 

It's a very fine line that the government are walking though Chris .How many times does Cameron have to say "rioters will be punished to the full extent of the law"before that is taken as a instruction to the courts ,as it sounded like to me when he spoke outside downing st on 9th august, either a poor choice of words or he knows that they will be punished to the full extent of the law

Re: Riots
 

A defence lawyer said that the guide book has been thrown out the window.

Re: Riots
 

Courts can only dish out sentences according to the laws of the land, for example a life sentence should mean life, but they only get 15, unless the judge give an order for longer, but that is for cases such as Murder.

The biggest problem with courts, they can dish out a sentence, but then they only serve half that. What should happen is, they should hand out a sentence like ' to be held by a jail until the crown decides they are suitable to be released, somewhere only those lines.

Cameron and his puppets cannot change the law to suit himself, or bring back the death penalty.

Re: Riots
 

Once again, total gibberish.

Re: Riots
 

i think Arthur should take note of your signature :D

Re: Riots
 

What? they can change the law to suit himself, and bring back the death penalty?

Re: Riots
 

There's no way they'll serve 4 years or anything like that so let's not pretend otherwise. I'd be very surprised if they do more than 18 months and not at all surprised if it turns out to be even less. Frankly I'd be quite happy for anyone who incites the sort of rioting we all witnessed with its potential for huge damage and loss of life to be locked up for 4 years.

---------- Post added at 21:31 ---------- Previous post was at 21:29 ----------

Well defence lawyers would say that wouldn't they! ;)

Re: Riots
 

it will be interesting to see what the apeal judges have to say

Re: Riots
 

Unfortunately, I was about to say the same thing.

Shame.

Re: Riots
 

Considering that in this case nobody actually took up the offer to riot, would you be happy with a bill to the taxpayer of ~£160,000 as well?

Yes, prison costs the taxpayer £40,000 per inmate per year, and we're locking up quite a few...

That's not from me. It's from Pinko Liberal, hand wringing, muesli eating and sandal wearing Guardianista Right Honourable Kenneth Clarke, Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice.

Re: Riots
 

Perhaps I'm being thick but why does it cost so much and why cant it be reduced.

Re: Riots
 

Well, presumably, you need specifically designed buildings, guards that are available around the clock. Prisoners need feeding, health care etc. I don't expect recreational facilities will add a great deal to the price.

I'm not surprised it's expensive to put people up in a secure environment 24/7.

Re: Riots
 

Im sure that could be reviewed. :erm:

I think its stupid Paul that people were sending TEXT MESSAGES to other rioters! (Did they not think they would share them with police?)

Re: Riots
 

And there is a lot of them coming out of the wood work to wring there hands, I am sure the HRA lawyers will be along shortly to make use of that act to get the rioters out of jail.

I am sure a reduction can be found in the cost of keeping them, How about bread and water for starters :LOL:

Re: Riots
 

Some of these people are not well known for their brains, dude ...

Re: Riots
 

Yup but as has already been said they won't serve 4 years or anything like that so the bill won't be £160k. We have to set against the costs of justice, the massive costs of current and future rioting, looting, arson etc. if the sentences being handed down now aren't a serious deterrent.

Hehe yes,i have heard the phrase "Criminals are stupid" 100s of times :D

Re: Riots
 

That will get you 3 months:D

Re: Riots
 

Unless it hit a judge, in which case you get life.

Re: Riots
 

Looks like normal service is resuming. :(

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england...ester-14589259

Ah well decent sentences were nice while they lasted.

Re: Riots
 

Don't give disproportional sentences and then they are less likely to be successfully appealed. I don't imagine a prison sentence is usually given for handling stolen goods, especially not a term of 5 months. If they gave a fine and community service (as well as the fact they would have have a criminal record) then that's punishment and a contribution to society which exceeds the damage they did.

Re: Riots
 

Which won't be paid.

Which won't get done and even if by some miracle they do turn up it only involves a few hours standing around smoking or looking for jobs or training courses on the internet.

Re: Riots
 

Well if they don't pay for fine or serve the community service then hold them in contempt (or whatever law there is) and then chuck them in Jail. Prison shouldn't be the first resort for relatively minor crimes. :shrug:

Re: Riots
 

I sometimes wonder how people like you manage to carry on doing your job and knowing that in many cases the resulting punishments will not fit the crime and may even turn out to be non-existant.

:tu: to you matey!

Re: Riots
 

Looks like Common Sense is prevailing at last. :tu:

Re: Riots
 

Balls. The riots ended because a: There were more cops on the street and the gloves came off and b: It was raining heavily.

The main reason they haven't flared up again IMO is it was widely broadcast that taking part meant jail. No community service, no pointless fine, no suspended sentence but a good long spell inside.

If the current sentencing policy for riots reverts back to jail being the exception then expect far more outbreaks of disorder in the coming months and years.

Re: Riots
 

She didn't take part in the looting or the riots. She accepted an item of clothing which she knew had been stolen in the riots by someone else. Still against the law but not worthy of 5 months inside a Prison cell.

Re: Riots
 

No no Derek. this was about the woman who was given a pair of stolen shorts and was sentenced to 5 months in jail. she's just been freed because the sentence was ridiculous.

Re: Riots
 

I'd rather all those who were violent,caused damage,set fire to any property and assaulted the public and police got the long custodial sentences and those who profited second hand got the proportional sentencing their crime usually deserves.:erm:

Re: Riots
 

I've stated several times in this thread that I have absolutely no problem with those actually taking part in the riots/looting going to prison. Sure, it is unacceptable behaviour and needs to be dealt with and deterred. However, I previously listed this case as an example of where a prison sentence seems over the top because this woman was asleep when the looting took place.

Yes, looting = prison. No problem whatsoever.

I had a problem with this case as well as the exorbitant sentences handed down for some instances of inciting (4 years when nothing actually happened e.g.). I expect that sentence to be reduced as well, particularly as I read the other day that another person who called for a coop (or something like that) to be torched, only had to write a letter of apology.

I have never suggested that prison was not appropriate for actual looters.

Oh, and I hope this moron receives a lengthy prison spell as well.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/au...tudent-custody

Re: Riots
 

But when you say that nothing happened when these two wanted to incite a riot through Facebook the fact remains that through them we could have had a huge outburst of trouble and someone could have possibly ended up in hospital or even worse then that we could have had a fatality through these idiots so l think the sentence is very fitting for these idiots.

Re: Riots
 

True, but we didn't. Once again, I don't object to a custodial sentence here, but four years seems disproportionate given that nothing happened. Also, it's a waste of money.

Re: Riots
 

I think the sentence for receiving was over the top, but not the incitement one - they shouldn't get a lesser sentence because they weren't succesful in their efforts; are we saying incompetent/stupid criminals should be treated more leniently than the ones who manage to carry out the crime?

Re: Riots
 

No, but I thought it was an established principle in law that the gravity of the consequences of one's actions partly determines the sentence.

Re: Riots
 

I could not be a copper Derek and you have far more patience than me, I would hate to see **** bags just getting a smacked hand because the Libs have got there way and ruined the justice system. what is the point of arresting a **** bag when some weak arsed liberal lawyer gets them out with a smacked hand and a stern don't do it again lecture. :mad:

Re: Riots
 

Sirius you have been complaining about liberals and human rights repeatedly instead of discussing the actual sentences or issues actually being talked about. You also consistently misrepresent the opinions of those who you disagree with, dismissing them as weak liberals or other derogatory terms.

I haven't seen many posts from the more liberal members of the forum calling for 'don't do it again' lectures. In fact I think everyone is in agreement that the rioters and looters should probably see the inside of a prison cell which reflects the view of the wider population - including liberals. You seem to be getting angry at a argument that no one is making.

The disagreements are small and usually centre around individual cases such as the case we're talking about where a woman received a 5 month sentence for handling stolen goods. Not looting, not rioting, taking a pair of shorts she knew was stolen. Even then everyone is saying she deserves punishment just probably not time in prison.

Re: Riots
 

Not since the Serious Crimes Act 2007.....

Re: Riots
 

That doesn't mean the principle doesn't apply? It just means that encouraging an offence can attract the same penalties as the actual offence.

Can be. Not will or should be. Plenty of scope to take account of the fact that nothing actually happened. (Which doesn't make it a harmless offence. Just not one that deserves 4 years imo.)

Re: Riots
 

Yes nothing did happen but it is the possibility of what could have happened and that makes it very serious in the my mind so the judge is taking into acount the potential serious gravity of what could have happened because in law that is just as serious as committing a crime.

Re: Riots
 

Good post!

---------- Post added at 17:58 ---------- Previous post was at 17:50 ----------

Oh yes, it's a crime alright, and worthy of punishment. Just not worthy of 4 years in jail. Six months seems more appropriate. Just like 5 months for putting a pair of stolen shorts on your head is disproportionate.

Re: Riots
 

I do think that some of the sentences are disproportionate namely the shorts woman and the bottle of water woman ,as for the idiots that tried to start their own riot i think it's about right given that they could have got 10yrs in theory and may well have done had there been any disturbance through their actions ,also they are a pair of numpties and a bit of jail time couldn't hurt ,but of course that isn't how the system works and nor should it .It is strange how over the last 20-30yrs we have all been moaning how the judges are handing out too lenient sentences and as soon as they do start then people start questioning the sentences ,i am one of those people and the reason why is because of the inconsistency ,sentences compared to similar crimes are 25% longer than usual .It's great that judges have finally seen sense but i will be watching the Tyne /Wear derby closely tomorrow and if any gangs of supporters cause trouble then i expect the same harsh treatment as the rioters got

Re: Riots
 

There is a maximum sentence that they can impose. Therefore anything that is within that limit must by definition be acceptable. The maximum is not meant to only apply in instances of 50 crimes or more, :rolleyes: it can apply for a single offence.

Re: Riots
 

By that reasoning, no punishment is acceptable for offences where there is no minimum penalty, so stop moaning about people getting off too lightly.

Re: Riots
 

Seeing this news report LINK reminded me of the time when I was just a kid, we found an old piano, each key had a lead weight at the far end of each key to return the key up to it's normal position after being pressed, after removing the lead weights we wondered what we could use them for.
Now, as there was not much money about for toys we had to use our ingenuity and imagination more than today's children, anyway, some houses were being knocked down so it only took a moment to find some old pipe and quickly turn it into a gun. I won't go into detail but suffice to say we had a great time firing those lead weights out of the pipe, shooting them right over the houses, luckily the pipe never exploded.
The things we used to get up to.... :D:D

Re: Riots
 

I had a fine old time with improvised explosive devices when I was (much) younger ... it would be a recipe for being tracked down and jailed for a long time these days. Times change.