Riots

She won't be inside for 5 months. In all likelihood she will be inside for about 8-9 weeks, then in the care of the probation service, possibly with a tag, for the rest of the time.

That said, I disagree that the sentence is absurd in the context of a riot. Wide-scale disregard for the norms of behaviour in our society that guarantee people can live and work without fear of assault on their person or property is exponentially worse than the activities of individual random teenagers shoplifting for the lulz.

The rioters crossed a big fat red line and the way the courts are giving prominence to the seriousness of the event, rather than the previous good character of some of the participants, is entirely correct IMO. There simply has to be zero tolerance of this sort of behaviour. It cannot become as normal as a drunken fight outside the nightclub on a Friday night.

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by Damien

So if you share your home with someone who has broken the law, you both deserve to be evicted?

You'd change your mind on this, if they were your neighbours and causing mayhem/noise in your vicinity.

Originally Posted by Chris

She won't be inside for 5 months. In all likelihood she will be inside for about 8-9 weeks, then in the care of the probation service, possibly with a tag, for the rest of the time.

That said, I disagree that the sentence is absurd in the context of a riot. Wide-scale disregard for the norms of behaviour in our society that guarantee people can live and work without fear of assault on their person or property is exponentially worse than the activities of individual random teenagers shoplifting for the lulz.

The rioters crossed a big fat red line and the way the courts are giving prominence to the seriousness of the event, rather than the previous good character of some of the participants, is entirely correct IMO. There simply has to be zero tolerance of this sort of behaviour. It cannot become as normal as a drunken fight outside the nightclub on a Friday night.

Part of the problem as i see it though is that a drunken fight outside a nightclub to use your example has become the norm and are being punished far less severely as my previous link shows .What needs to happen is that consistency of sentencing across the board needs to be looked at not just during times of social unrest because being treated leniently in the past has led to the disrespect and disregard of law and order that we saw in the riots

Originally Posted by nomadking

You'd change your mind on this, if they were your neighbours and causing mayhem/noise in your vicinity.

They are not being evicted for making noise inside their home. They are being evicted because on of the members of the household has committed a crime. That is quite different. It doesn't affect their neighbours directly.

[Gary L]

Originally Posted by Chris

She won't be inside for 5 months. In all likelihood she will be inside for about 8-9 weeks, then in the care of the probation service, possibly with a tag, for the rest of the time.

That said, I disagree that the sentence is absurd in the context of a riot. Wide-scale disregard for the norms of behaviour in our society that guarantee people can live and work without fear of assault on their person or property is exponentially worse than the activities of individual random teenagers shoplifting for the lulz.

The rioters crossed a big fat red line and the way the courts are giving prominence to the seriousness of the event, rather than the previous good character of some of the participants, is entirely correct IMO. There simply has to be zero tolerance of this sort of behaviour. It cannot become as normal as a drunken fight outside the nightclub on a Friday night.

I'll quote it all and say, you'd think they'd have laws in place ready for such an event instead of panicking and just coming up with severe punishments that are not already in the book.

maybe Britain really didn't think this kind of thing was a possibility. and we're that taken back by it that we are reacting accordingly.

Originally Posted by Chris

She won't be inside for 5 months. In all likelihood she will be inside for about 8-9 weeks, then in the care of the probation service, possibly with a tag, for the rest of the time.

That said, I disagree that the sentence is absurd in the context of a riot. Wide-scale disregard for the norms of behaviour in our society that guarantee people can live and work without fear of assault on their person or property is exponentially worse than the activities of individual random teenagers shoplifting for the lulz.

The rioters crossed a big fat red line and the way the courts are giving prominence to the seriousness of the event, rather than the previous good character of some of the participants, is entirely correct IMO. There simply has to be zero tolerance of this sort of behaviour. It cannot become as normal as a drunken fight outside the nightclub on a Friday night.

I agree that the surrounding context should increase the sentences as a whole. I have been pleased with the majority of sentences being handed out to the looters and especially the rioters. Everyone involved with the riots, the violence, and the provocation should see the inside of a prison cell.

However accepting goods which you known to have been stolen by someone else should warrant a fine, a criminal record and community service IMO. I think that is sufficient for the nature of the crime.

[Gary L]

Originally Posted by Damien

They are not being evicted for making noise inside their home. They are being evicted because on of the members of the household has committed a crime. That is quite different. It doesn't affect their neighbours directly.

She owes rent arrears of over £1800 as well. I feel sorry for his 6 year old sister. she probably did all she could short of locking him in his bedroom till it all died down.

[denphone]

Originally Posted by Damien

I agree that the surrounding context should increase the sentences as a whole. I have been pleased with the majority of sentences being handed out to the looters and especially the rioters. Everyone involved with the riots, the violence, and the provocation should see the inside of a prison cell.

However accepting goods which you known to have been stolen by someone else should warrant a fine, a criminal record and community service IMO. I think that is sufficient for the nature of the crime.

And l will second that.

Originally Posted by Gary L

I'll quote it all and say, you'd think they'd have laws in place ready for such an event instead of panicking and just coming up with severe punishments that are not already in the book.

maybe Britain really didn't think this kind of thing was a possibility. and we're that taken back by it that we are reacting accordingly.

Those laws already exist and are being used by the courts to sentence the rioters and the looters. The judges aren't making this up as they go along - they're not allowed to. But when sentencing, the law gives them a maximum sentence for the crime, and sometimes a minimum, and they pick what they believe to be appropriate from within that range.

[Gary L]

And after all the sentencing is done. we'll go back to the lenient sentencing for loss of life, ABH and GBH.

and then as long as it doesn't affect us directly, then we won't be too bothered. but if it does affect us directly we'll say 3 months for that and he got 9 for a £3 bottle of water?

I wonder if anyone's considered adding a month or two on the sentencing for making Britain look a joke to the rest of the world, and/or for making Dave look a bigger door knob than he was already credited for?

[danielf]

Originally Posted by Chris

It's easy enough to make almost anything sound absurd if you wilfully ignore the context.

Hmmm. How about this context then:

Originally Posted by BBC

Former MP Eric Illsley has told the BBC he was used as a "scapegoat", on his release from prison three months into a 12-month sentence for expenses fraud.

The ex-Barnsley Central MP was jailed in February after admitting dishonestly claiming £14,000 of parliamentary expenses relating to his second home.

Yes, wearing a pair of shorts stolen in a riot (without actually taking part in the riot) seems on a par with fraudulently obtaining £14,000 while in high office.

I would humbly submit that the system has dealt leniently with Illsley, rather than the other way round...

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by Damien

They are not being evicted for making noise inside their home. They are being evicted because on of the members of the household has committed a crime. That is quite different. It doesn't affect their neighbours directly.

You were complaining about the general principle of being evicted for the actions of somebody else. Are you now saying that it would be ok for noise or other nuisance related incidents. If so, how is the outcome any different?

The same goes for people complaining about people potentially being made homeless. They are being asked to move elsewhere, just in the same way that others have to move for one way or another(eg change of jobs, owner of rented accommodation selling up). The outcome of having to move is the same whatever the reason for it.

Originally Posted by Damien

They are not being evicted for making noise inside their home. They are being evicted because on of the members of the household has committed a crime. That is quite different. It doesn't affect their neighbours directly.

it'll be interesting to note how many people get evicted for commiting crimes after all this has died down

[danielf]

Originally Posted by Chris

I would humbly submit that the system has dealt leniently with Illsley, rather than the other way round...

He's not the only one though is he?

Originally Posted by Guardian

Expenses cheat MP Jim Devine released from prison after four months

Former Labour MP who was jailed for 16 months for submitting false invoices is released after serving a quarter of his sentence

He spent four months behind bars after submitting false invoices totalling £8,385 between 2008 and 2009 – after politicians' claims had already become front-page news.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2...evine-released

What fantastic role models we have...
I'm with Damien on this. Actually taking part in the riots/looting warrants a jail term. Wearing a pair of shorts given to you by a looter is something else altogether. There are definitely agrevating circumstances which warrant some penalty, but I think jail is over the top. It's also not exactly a cheap option.