Riots

[denphone]

Yes its a very sad state of affairs when politicians of all parties cow-tow to certain powerful individuals or media outlets.

[Sirius]

Originally Posted by denphone

Yes its a very sad state of affairs when politicians of all parties cow-tow to certain powerful individuals or media outlets.

The government have been disappointedly knee-jerk in their reaction. Talking of evictions and powers to suspend social networking. I hope they do examine the reasons why these people came to be like this and leaving the justice to the courts and police who seem to be doing a good job.

[Gary L]

I wonder if these evictions and disproportionate sentencing is a one off knee jerk reaction, or has the law been re-written now?

I wonder if a person and his whole non involved family would be deported with no appeal process.
I wonder if we are going to be scratching our heads and wondering why soon?

I wonder if Dave has changed his mind about giving a hoodie a hug now?

---------- Post added at 09:36 ---------- Previous post was at 09:26 ----------

It would be funny if the first bit of advice from the American is don't just go at them with guns blazing. don't give them a reason to think that it's you against them. don't punish their whole family for the wrongs of a family member.
show that as well as being tough you are willing to listen to their concerns.

Dave will say "oh crumbs, I've just alienated a lot of them by making them all homeless"

Originally Posted by Gary L

It would be funny if the first bit of advice from the American is don't just go at them with guns blazing. don't give them a reason to think that it's you against them. don't punish their whole family for the wrongs of a family member.
show that as well as being tough you are willing to listen to their concerns.

Dave will say "oh crumbs, I've just alienated a lot of them by making them all homeless"

I think that is exactly whats going to happen and exactly what should happen

[denphone]

Originally Posted by Damien

The government have been disappointedly knee-jerk in their reaction. Talking of evictions and powers to suspend social networking. I hope they do examine the reasons why these people came to be like this and leaving the justice to the courts and police who seem to be doing a good job.

Yes when they talk of suspending the social networking sites l find that rather ominous in a freedom of speech democracy because if we do that then we are adopting some of China's tactics and do we really want that in our country.

Originally Posted by denphone

Yes when they talk of suspending the social networking sites l find that rather ominous in a freedom of speech democracy because if we do that then we are adopting some of China's tactics and do we really want that in our country.

It's not something i would be worried about .I did raise the possibility of doing this in this thread during the riots .The legality is questionable as is the effectiveness .The reason countries like china do it are poles apart compared to why we would do it .we would do it to stop potential rioters contacting others and arranging further disturbances ,given that there are other avenues that the rioters could use it would therefore be limited in it's effectiveness .China do it to stop people speaking out against the government and getting evidence of things like human rights breaches out into the rest of the world

[danielf]

Originally Posted by Sirius

I personally feel its wrong, why punish the mother for what the son did and additional what happens if the mother is disabled or out of work ???

He did the deed he should be the one punished

Interesting article in the Guardian

Coalition efforts to present a united front over the riots have come under strain as senior Liberal Democrats call for an end to "kneejerk" reactions by politicians and warn that stripping those involved of their benefits could worsen crime on the streets.

In a clear sign of tensions between the governing parties, the Lib Dems' deputy leader, Simon Hughes, insists that long-term solutions lie in supporting communities by offering opportunities and redistributing wealth, not slashing help from the state and cutting taxes for the rich.

Writing in the Observer, he says: "We need to demonstrate ambition to have a responsible society where all people understand and are aware of their obligations to each other. This means we must not cut taxes for the rich or take away public support for the needy."

Referring to plans, backed by many Tories, to cut benefits and evict families of rioters and looters from their homes, Hughes, whose south London constituency of Bermondsey and Old Southwark has one of the highest concentrations of council homes, adds: "We should be careful not to rush into kneejerk solutions including over-hasty moves to change the social contract and approaches to sentences which may have the reverse effect to that intended."

Strange though. As I recall, it was Clegg who first floated the idea of evicting looters. Also:

As Lib Dem leader Nick Clegg also cautioned against "kneejerk" reactions, Hughes's comments were backed by the Lib Dems' welfare spokeswoman, Jenny Willott, who said she was "very worried" about moves to cut benefits for those involved in the riots, when the same punishment would not apply to others who had committed equally serious offences.

Seems eminently sensible to me. Do we really want to punish council house dwellers twice compared to those living in private housing? Just because we can?

And the icing on the cake, found through the comments on that article. Five months in prison for wearing stolen shorts.

Mum-of-two Ursula Nevin has been sentenced to five months in prison for handling stolen goods after she accepted and wore a pair of shorts stolen during the Manchester riots.

Nevin was asleep at home when her housemate, Gemma Corbett, took part in the Manchester disturbances, and looted an unguarded Vans shop in the area for £629 worth of stolen goods.
Ursula Nevin Mum-of-two Ursula Nevin has been jailed for accepting a pair of looted shorts (Picture: Manchester Evening News)

The court heard how the following morning, Ms Nevin went through the pile of goods that had been brought back to her house, picked out a pair of shorts and choose to keep and wear them.

Really. Five months in prison? Over a pair of shorts stolen by someone else? Now there's a cost-effective way of drilling some sense into people.

I think the 'zero-tolerance' on street crime is a good idea. It worked in New York. The whole 'broken window' theory. However zero tolerance doesn't mean sentences that are out of proportion, evicting people, or the absurd 5 month sentence for accepting goods stolen by someone else?

Problem for the government is they want to appear tough but the only immediate thing they can do is nonsense like the evictions. The rest of it takes time to put into practise.

Originally Posted by danielf

Really. Five months in prison? Over a pair of shorts stolen by someone else? Now there's a cost-effective way of drilling some sense into people.

compare the seriousness of her crime to this one .This upstanding member of the community kicked punched and glassed a 17 yr old leaving him with a brain hemorrhage ,sentence = 1yr suspended for 2 yrs .This case was heard in manchester crown ct on monday last, i presume the same court that sent the women straight to jail for wearing a pair of stolen shorts

Originally Posted by danielf

Really. Five months in prison? Over a pair of shorts stolen by someone else? Now there's a cost-effective way of drilling some sense into people.

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

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by watzizname

Absolutely..

Not only that, he's 18 and therefore an adult, so how exactly can she be held responsible for his actions?

I am of course assuming the flat is solely in his mothers name, and that the official age one becomes an adult in this country is still 18..

This stinks

She is not being evicted simply because he is her son, but because he is living with her. If somebody has people living with them and those people misbehave one way or another(eg noise), are you saying that nothing can and should be done because they aren't the official tenants.

Originally Posted by nomadking

She is not being evicted simply because he is her son, but because he is living with her. If somebody has people living with them and those people misbehave one way or another(eg noise), are you saying that nothing can and should be done because they aren't the official tenants.

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

[denphone]

Originally Posted by Damien

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

Well the answer to that is no because you have not broken the law even though your other tenant has.

Originally Posted by Chris

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

I think five months prison is absurd even in context. She clearly knew they were stolen goods, didn't care, and took advantage of the spoils. However five months in prison seems excessive to me.