Re: Riots
 

mmm good old fashioned vigilante justice :rolleyes:

Re: Riots
 

Yep, the best type - the take-away is under different management.

Re: Riots
 

Could the riots in Manchester have anything to do with the court case involving the Asian males who attacked and raped the young girls.

And you have youths attacking the Asian shops in revenge ?

Re: Riots
 

See the second link in my post above Arthur.

Re: Riots
 

He doesnt do links :D

Re: Riots
 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-17232636


Good!

Re: Riots
 

Sadly, "lengthy" usually means 6 months, and out in 3.

Re: Riots
 

And sadly i have to agree :tu:

We can only hope they will get the TLC they desperately need whilst they are inside. ;)

Re: Riots
 

If the sentences the other rioters got are anything to go by, I'd expect a sentence somewhere between closer to 2 years (and out in half that).

Also, as far as I'm aware, they were denied bail, so they've already spent over 6 months in custody.

Re: Riots
 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-17234900

It's always good to hear of some positives coming from this :tu:

Maybe the judge has something else in mind for these idiots!

Quite sad....

Re: Riots
 

not quite...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-17380072

Re: Riots
 

Woah!!! The European Court of Criminal/Terrorist/Lunatic Rights have finally come to a decision that isn't completely barmy!!!

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/ma...?newsfeed=true

Re: Riots
 

Stick that up your corduroy, you yoghurt-knitting liberals.

Re: Riots
 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-17674395

Nice

Re: Riots
 

It'd be nice to think a sentence like this might focus the minds of a few of these yobs but some of them are so stupid I doubt it'll register.

It'll be interesting to see what the courts hand down to this young lady and her chums in due course:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-17586334

Re: Riots
 

I doubt it'll change the minds of anyone. From what I saw in the various documentaries most of the rioters were focused on getting their hands on "free stuff". All part of the "I deserve something for nothing" culture that chavs have.

Re: Riots
 

Another ******* gets to become intimate with the inside of a cell.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-17738958

It doesn't feel like justice to me...

Re: Riots
 

nor me ,8yrs out in about 3 .He was convicted of manslaughter so it is accepted that he didn't mean to kill the victim but he did mean to hit him and do him harm and i don't think that has been reflected in the sentence

Re: Riots
 

the judge said it was the if not one of the worst crimes during the riots. 8years isnt much considering what others have got for other crimes.

Re: Riots
 

compare that sentence to the one of the rioter who set fire to the furniture store he got 11 1/2 years

Re: Riots
 

There's rather too much of this senseless and highly aggressive 'lashing out' by thugs like this young moron. All too often it's aimed at weak, elderly or otherwise vulnerable people who it must be obvious are at risk of serious injury if not death. If the courts can set an example by giving 11 years for arson with no deaths or injuries, why on earth can't they send a message to the thugs that if you behave in this way and cause serious harm, the fact that you didn't think through what might result is not a mitigating factor.

Re: Riots
 

Exactly ,as far as i am concerned the intent to hurt/injure was there so this should have been treated far more seriously

Re: Riots
 

I think it may also reflect that the arsonist was 33, this lad is 17. That obviously doesn't make what he did right, but I can understand the judge viewing youthfulness a bit of a mitigating factor.

Re: Riots
 

I know what you are saying but i don't buy that .The youth was 16 at the time of the crime but was still old enough to be tried as an adult .Even a 15yr sentence would mean he would be out in about 7yrs max and he would still be in his early 20's .The way i see it is that a harsher sentence when young would be more of a deterent to future crimes he may commit than being lenient because of his age

Re: Riots
 

Well, the way I see it is that a prison sentence is clearly in order, but you also have to wonder about this kid's chances of turning his life around after he gets out of jail. I don't think there is much of a difference between an 8 and 12 years (nominal) sentence in terms of deterrent for future crimes. I suspect the likelihood of his re-offending is more likely to be determined by his ability to make something of his life when he gets out, and I don't think that will be positively affected by putting him away for longer.

Re: Riots
 

That's one way of looking at things ,the other is that if he doesn't turn things around ,which lets face it is highly probable ,then he will be under the impression that leniency is the norm and will not be deterred from any future criminal activity

Re: Riots
 

I suspect we're going to agree to disagree on this one :)

Seriously, I can see your point, but I just don't believe putting young kids in an environment with other offenders is doing much for their future prospects. You say a shorter spell is likely to make him think leniency is the norm. I say that by the time he gets out he'll have spent 20% of his life in prison. I wonder how many tricks he'll pick up inside. I really can't see much point in putting him away much longer, as it will only decrease the chances of him turning things around.

Re: Riots
 

Normally i would agree with you on this but in this case i wonder how much of a young kid he really is (in terms of experience) and how many tricks he has to learn .

---------- Post added at 23:30 ---------- Previous post was at 23:28 ----------

I also wondr how much of a influence the victim impact statement had on the judges sentence ,the victims family seemed quite forgiving

Re: Riots
 

Neither you (presumably) or I know the kid. I'm sure the judge will have had access to more info.

To be honest, I don't think victim impact statements should have any bearing on sentencing. They have their place in allowing the victim to be heard in the trial, but that's about it in my opinion. Sentencing should be done on the basis of facts (which includes impact on society), not victim perception.

Re: Riots
 

very true ,It is quite easy for us to sit in judgment without all the facts

Quite agree with that

Re: Riots
 

was there a plead gulity agreement?

Re: Riots
 

Do we have these in the UK? :confused:

Re: Riots
 

Not sure about an agreement but the guilty pleas where taken into concideration .

One thing that does stick in my mind ,mentioned in the judges statement ,is the futility of those riots .I think most of the people who took part where not normally of that kind of mindset ,they may not have been perfect citizens and maybe strayed across the line a little .But so many are now facing ruined careers and ruined lives because of a few hours madness that for the most part ,i think it fair to say was out of character .One good thing the media has done is give high publicity to the trials and sentences which may in itself serve as a deterrent for those not normally predisposed to violence of this nature but live close to egde of criminality

---------- Post added at 00:14 ---------- Previous post was at 00:10 ----------

I don't think we do have "plea bargaining" what we do have is leniency for pleading guilty ,which i suspect may have been the case in this instance .How far we take pleading guilty for leniency i don't know ,but where a death is concerned i think it dangerous to allow offenders to plead guilty in exchange for leniency especially if there is strong evidence against them

Re: Riots
 

True. But with respect to comparing this case to the arsonist: according to the Beeb the arsonist changed his plea from 'not guilty' to 'guilty' after the prosecution presented their case. Surely, that shouldn't qualify for leniency?

Re: Riots
 

so he owned up to all or opened up if you like, showed hes manning up and the judge took note.

Re: Riots
 

Learn to read please. Also please read the preceding couple of pages to learn the context.

Re: Riots
 

sorry i thought your previous post was about the teenager who killed the old man.

Re: Riots
 

Yes we do

Re: Riots
 

Actually research has shown we aren't locking people up long enough, anything under 2 years is a waste of time and in our jails I hardly think anyone doing 6 or 8 years is going to get institutionalised, we know what to do but to save a few quid we cut corners and it costs us so much more in the long run, for a start no prisoner sould imo leave jail without being able to read, write and do some sums and no prisoner would leave jail thinking his only option is crime, I worked with young offenders and for some reason they had it in the heads that crime was the only thing they could do.

---------- Post added at 06:51 ---------- Previous post was at 06:49 ----------

Kind of, the judge takes into account how helpful you have been to the police in clearing up their crime rate and sentences you accordingly.

Re: Riots
 

I have no idea what this young man's history is but can say that at his age there are many youths in our inner cities who're very well versed in crime both minor and serious at his age and much younger sadly. For a large number of these youths it's already too late to change their thinking or their outlook IMHO. They've been raised (if you can call it that) in an environment which has taught them that they don't have to work or study to get what they want, they can just take it. They have no desire to work, scrimp and save over a period to get what they want, they just steal or sell drugs to have those things now. They don't respect anyone or anything - their only concept of respect is related to who's most intimidating, who 'hits hardest' and who's got the most bling. Many have long been fed a diet of resentment and 'taught' that they're not responsible for their predicament or their actions. Sadly, for a fair proportion of these youths from all communities, I feel their future in gangs, crime etc. is already set in stone by their mid-late teens and the best we can do is get them off the streets and keep them there for as long as possible. I do think that whilst in jail there ought to be opportunities for all of them to learn, develop and hopefully change tack but I feel we have to accept that some of them have no intention of changing their ways and no end of concessions made by the state will alter that fact. We have to get to grips with the reality that defective parents tend to produce defective children. Much more effort needs to be put into reversing the trend whereby it's seen as normal and acceptable for young girls to aspire to nothing more than having children by several transient fathers none of whom are prepared to accept responsibility for their actions but expect the state to pick up the pieces. Sadly, we have to teach our young boys that impregnating girls isn't a badge of honour, can't be walked away from and will have lifelong implications.
Given that so many parents aren't doing it, the state must educate our very young children that they can expect and achieve more but only through their own efforts. They need to know they will be helped and encouraged to do this but if they choose the alternative route there will be no kid gloves.

Re: Riots
 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-18203338

Can't say I'm sorry.

Re: Riots
 

Oooft, a new winner in the riot sentencing smack down arrives.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england...ngham-18349992

:tu:

Re: Riots
 

Excellent news! :clap:

Just a pity most of their chums are probably too stupid to see this as a deterrent but at least they'll be out of harm's way for a nice long time. I wonder what'll happen to the local serious crime figures while they're banged up.

Re: Riots
 

Excellent news, Now watch the lawyer's line up to make a small fortune from the appeals process :mad:

Re: Riots
 

The most appropriate headline re sentencing imo should go along the lines of two men sent to prison for five years (iirc) for inciting riots over the internet and five men not jailed for distributing thousands of child porn images over the internet on the same day.

got our priorities completely right yet again :rolleyes:

Re: Riots
 

And going right back to the trigger for the riots.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/ju...un-mark-duggan

Re: Riots
 

but 'e never did nuffin'

Re: Riots
 

I must be getting old but that Guardian article is actually fairly balanced. :shocked:

The footage shot from the tower block overlooking the scene with the narration along the lines of "They told him to drop it" seems to have killed the 'he never had a gun' theories.

Re: Riots
 

Damn!!! If this is true, surely it must mean that every time a black man dies at the hands of the police in similar circumstances, it isn't necessarily an act of institutionalised racism against an entirely innocent victim who's been fitted up by the pigs...

Re: Riots
 

are you saying that some black men may actually be guilty :shocked: you need to careful with those kind of accusations :)

Re: Riots
 

The BBC were due to screen a drama about the riots last night but were stopped by court order.

The Judge who ordered the block, the court he/she sits in and the case details are all secret for legal reasons.

I wonder whats caused the program to be shelved and why the secrecy around it?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/tv/2012/0...wn-words.shtml

Re: Riots
 

Well I'd have a guess. something to do with the olympics. not wanting to give them an idea of having another one?

Re: Riots
 

Ongoing case involving a child, perhaps? I wouldn't shed too many tears over the non-screening of this blatant piece of lefty propaganda though. Oddly enough, when the report was serialised in the Grauniad (which co-sponsored it), it turned out that the rioters' concerns were miraculously all the same as those of the hand-wringing, muesli-munching Guardianistas. "Reading the Riots" is in no way an independent, un-slanted piece of research.

Re: Riots
 

Surely you're not suggesting they came up with a version of events and the causes thereof which suited their agenda are you? ;)

Re: Riots
 

Whereas the recent documentary on Channel 4 I think it was, was insightful, balanced and excellent television.

Nope it was on the Beeb. Riots- The Aftershock.

Not that I cared for the dance guy though.

Re: Riots
 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england...ngham-18901922

Re: Riots
 

Let's hope everyone heeds the Judge's appeal for calm and the father's wish that there be no reprisals.

Re: Riots
 

We can but hope.

Re: Riots
 

There was a trial on....

BBC 20th July

Re: Riots
 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...ures-show.html

It would seem that they weren't simply misunderstood youth protesting against govt cuts. Perhaps they really were/are ****? :dozey:

Re: Riots
 

I knew that when the riots were ongoing and agree that they are ****

Re: Riots
 

I wonder how many had form before the riots too. ****'s the word for many of them I reckon.

Re: Riots
 

No, no........it was a
link So it was nothing to do with them being **** in the first place :dozey:

Re: Riots
 

Course not, stands to reason....... :rolleyes:

Re: Riots
 

So it wasn't down to Duggan, who in no way was a criminal, had no criminal links, access to firearms and didn't throw away a gun when challenged by Police :erm: getting shot then?

They were just looking for any excuse.

Re: Riots
 

Spot on!

Re: Riots
 

Bang on the button. :tu:

Re: Riots
 

The only thing that Grauniad "research" demonstrates is just how badly you can get suckered by observer bias without even realising it.

What a surprise, all the rioters have the same hand-wringing concerns as your average yoghurt-knitting, Graun-reading Hampstead liberal.

Re: Riots
 

.......and that some people can be so open minded that their brains fall out......:D

Re: Riots
 

Well on Radio 4 according to one turned around teenager this morning it was the fault of teachers who didn't give one to one teaching in secondary school.:(

However he got the one to one when he went onto college.

Of course no mention of the time constraints on secondary teachers who will be teaching at least 21 classes out of 25 in a week on average and then rely on teaching extra sessions at the end of the day to help smaller groups of examination students to help catch-up.

Of course many lecturers at college have 2-3 classes in lower and upper years and therefore do have time to give to supporting poorer performing students..

Re: Riots
 

It's always someone else's fault isn't it - far easier than taking responsibility for your own actions.

Re: Riots
 

What a load of absolute crap (not your post Maggie ;))I could blame loads of things and people for me not being a millionaire or at least not better off ,so could everyone ,as Osem said blaming someone else is the easy option and relying on someone else is even easier

Re: Riots
 

Just found an interesting tool that tracks the spread of twitter rumours in the riots.

Re: Riots
 

Shock! Horror!

The completely innocent and in no way criminally connected man executed in cold blood by the Police sparking off the riots :rolleyes: may have actually been carrying a loaded gun.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-19635639

Re: Riots
 

Quelle surprise!!!! :rolleyes:

Re: Riots
 

Funnily enough the Guardian don't seem to have reported it yet...

Re: Riots
 

Is it really a surprise that people thought the police made a mistake? Public confidence in the police isn't especially high. The truth has come out, thankfully, and the police were right and the critics of the police were wrong. The sarcasm isn't warranted however because this was not obvious to many people.

Re: Riots
 

Not for me! Perhaps those 'folks' for whom it wasn't 'obvious' ought to have reserved their actions and retribution until the facts were known. I dare say some of these people will, even now, insist this guy was set up, assassinated, the wholly innocent victim of a racist police state or whatever because that's a whole lot easier than looking at themselves and the way in which they choose to behave and live their lives.

---------- Post added at 18:29 ---------- Previous post was at 18:24 ----------

Wonder why?? :confused: :rolleyes:

Re: Riots
 

It's called confirmation bias. People see the evidence they want to see - the evidence that confirms what they already believe to be true.

Re: Riots
 

Their actions were not to riot, these were a different group of people. The initial protest wasn't meant to spark a riot and was probably incorrectly spurred by this case which people tied into a greater issue of their distrust of the police.

Now we have the evidence people should know this guy does seem to have been a danger and the police do seem to have reacted as they should. However when you remember the John Charles de Menezes it's going to make people suspicious of the police version of events. Really everyone should reserve judgement until all the facts are known but when do we ever do that here? :p:

Re: Riots
 

This is blatant pro police propaganda!!!! Mark Duggan was innocent,the cops were just out for blood that day!!!! :rolleyes:

Re: Riots
 

What he says.

Re: Riots
 

I was being sarcastic,Gary.... ;)

Re: Riots
 

I wasn't referring to the rioters, the vast majority of whom seem to have been out stealing and smashing up the property of innocent people rather than getting a coherent point across to the police. I was referring to the people who only ever see what they want to see and when it suits their agenda or own prejudices. Those of the so called 'community spokespeople' who claim foul play everywhere on the part of the police before they know the facts and even when the facts are known and disprove their blinkered views.

As for what we do here. Well we discuss events in a forum and make judgements based on the details we have at the time. There's nothing wrong with that because, for the most part, we're willing to amend those judgements if events subsequently prove us wrong. Pity more people on the streets of places like Tottenham don't try it.

Re: Riots
 

I don't think these people had any intention of making any point. I think some of them saw a chance to exploit the situation of some rioting to loot and act violently. Some otherwise law-abiding people probably got swept up with the crowd and took leave of their senses as well.

Everyone does this to an extent. Just as people wrongly presumed the Police where in the wrong there were many who had no sympathy for John Charles de Menezes being killed. First he was a terrorist, then he ran away from the police and jumped a barrier and more and more dubious information that sought to place the blame on him. So we shouldn't be surprised when people take assurances from the police with a pinch of salt. The vindication of the police shouldn't be accompanied by sarcasm as if the initial doubt was unwarranted.

Re: Riots
 

The uncertainty surrounding these events is inevitable and stems from totally unrealistic demands for instant and accurate information from the authorities by the media and sections of public alike. When this isn't forthcoming (and how can it be in such circumstances?) it's used as an excuse to justify all sorts of behaviour by some people who ought to know better and others who don't want to know better because bleating on about conspiracy after conspiracy and entirely innocent victims better suits their agenda.

Re: Riots
 

Ooft! How do you like them apples! :D

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england...ngham-19886439

Re: Riots
 

You don't get that much for killing someone!! :shocked::confused:

Re: Riots
 

Shocking isn't it.

Re: Riots
 

I'd appeal. my argument would be that the sentence is disproportianate to the crime.
a few more years was only added on because it embarrassed Dave. and Dave wants to deter anyone from embarrassing him in the future.

We'll wait and see what Dale Cregan gets. and then we can make the real comparison.

Re: Riots
 

I'm all for locking these **** up but 30 years seems a bit much.....

Re: Riots
 

Let's hope this sort of sentencing will endure and **** like this (and worse) get what they deserve.

I dare say this will be appealed, however, and that they'll actually serve a small fraction of the original sentence.

Re: Riots
 

And so it should.
People have lost loved ones, and the people who took their lives got a whole lot less.

it's a bit like slapping Daves big slaphead and getting 5 years for it. but beating an old lady up you only get community service.

Re: Riots
 

Don't forget the sentencing wasn't just for firearms offenses ,they set fire to the pub with residents upstairs and shooting at a helicopter over a built up area ,how many would that have killed ?

Re: Riots
 

Agreed, but they didn't actually kill anyone so I'm mystified why they have received longer sentences than some people who have killed someone :confused:

Re: Riots
 

That's been the case in all the riot trials ,people have been receiving disproportionate sentences because they where committed during the riots ,maybe the bar is being raised ,who knows

Re: Riots
 

They have not received longer sentences than a murderer. Everybody who commits murder goes to prison for life. A tariff is set which is the *minimum* time they must serve before they can be considered for parole. Very few murderers get out of jail on or close to the date the tariff expires. Many of them remain in jail for a lot longer and have no idea when, if ever, they will be released. If/when they are released, they can be sent back to jail at barely a moment's notice for even minor misdemeanours.

The idiots sentenced this week have fixed *maximum* terms of 35 and 29 years which will be subject to the usual 'time off for good behaviour' .... unless they're very bad boys in jail they will be out in 15 years or so and in the care of the probation service.

Edit

The basic, minimum tariff for life imprisonment in England & Wales is set at 14 years in cases where there are no mitigating or aggravating factors. Mitigating circumstances like mental illness or killing an abusive partner can lead to a reduction in the tariff. Aggravating factors can lengthen it significantly (e.g. killing someone in the course of an armed robbery).

Had they killed someone as a result of shooting at the helicopter, their life sentence would have carried a tariff considerably longer than the 15-odd years they are likely to be behind bars under the sentences passed this week. Remember, though, the key factor is a life tariff is *minimum* jail time, all other sentences are *maximum* jail time. The judge has set the sentences in this case so as to be comparable with an actual murder, IMO.

Re: Riots
 

The Mark Duggan stuff rolls on:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19978477

Re: Riots
 

http://news.sky.com/story/1045625/ma...-supplying-gun