Is it really the judge putting someone, known to be a trouble maker, away without actual evidence? Something like giving life to Al Capone for tax evasion?
Tottenham Riots
- Thread starter Shadey
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
Well the evidence on Facebook is obviously not good enough otherwise people say, 'Yep, judge has got it right'
They should have their taxes checked.
[quote author=Squiggles link=topic=46360.msg1381296#msg1381296 date=1313587844]
[quote author=jexykrodic link=topic=46360.msg1381217#msg1381217 date=1313577781]
As long as accused are given a fair trial then who are we to second guess the sentences handed down by those properly appointed?
Those subject to the criminal law have the right of appeal don't they?
[/quote]
What sort of logic is that? By the same token should we never question Politicians? The Police? What can you question? Also, have you seen the demographic make-up of judges in this country?
To hand out a 4 year sentence over Facebook activity is clearly a Judge wanting to get in the headlines. I doubt many rioters and looters themselves will get a penalty longer than fours years, and they've committed far more serious offences.
[/quote]
You can question Politicians and Police and there are channels to do that.
Demographically the Judge was probably a white male adult as were the offenders. What's your point?
The facebook 'activity' was attempting to incite riot.
I expect rioters and looters will get tough sentences although I'm unsure custodial sentences or fines are worthwhile. Better that they have to make good the damage and face their victims.
In my opinion there aren't too many offences more serious than incitement to riot.
[quote author=jexykrodic link=topic=46360.msg1381217#msg1381217 date=1313577781]
As long as accused are given a fair trial then who are we to second guess the sentences handed down by those properly appointed?
Those subject to the criminal law have the right of appeal don't they?
[/quote]
What sort of logic is that? By the same token should we never question Politicians? The Police? What can you question? Also, have you seen the demographic make-up of judges in this country?
To hand out a 4 year sentence over Facebook activity is clearly a Judge wanting to get in the headlines. I doubt many rioters and looters themselves will get a penalty longer than fours years, and they've committed far more serious offences.
[/quote]
You can question Politicians and Police and there are channels to do that.
Demographically the Judge was probably a white male adult as were the offenders. What's your point?
The facebook 'activity' was attempting to incite riot.
I expect rioters and looters will get tough sentences although I'm unsure custodial sentences or fines are worthwhile. Better that they have to make good the damage and face their victims.
In my opinion there aren't too many offences more serious than incitement to riot.
How do people feel about a heavily publicised, across the board zero tolerance policy?
I seem to remember New York bring it in with dramatic results a number of years ago.
I seem to remember New York bring it in with dramatic results a number of years ago.
Give it a go, I say. Other cities in the States have also used it with similar results, and it's worked here too, in Middlesborough under Ray Mallon (the senior police officer who introduced it and later became Mayor). It won't be enough on its own, but it's certainly a start.
Personally I reckon that rather than the magistrates trying to get into the news by handing down heavy sentences, they're trying to avoid getting into the news for being too lenient - erring on the side of caution and being harsh as they figure with the public mood they'll get away with this more than being too soft.
However - I'll make the point again:
Convicted paedophiles have been sentenced and given half as much jail time as these dickheads on Facebook. Is this supposed to promote confidence in the justice system?
However - I'll make the point again:
Convicted paedophiles have been sentenced and given half as much jail time as these dickheads on Facebook. Is this supposed to promote confidence in the justice system?
I'm not sure a fair, balanced and reliable system of sentencing is realistic; especially when emotions are running high. It's only human to strike back when outraged.
It's worth a trial with a harsh policy (zero tolerance) to begin with and simply tell offenders beforehand what to expect; whether they be rioters or paedophiles etc.
I'm quite sure of one thing though: a Judge will be a lot less harsh and emotional than the victims of rioters or paedophiles would be.
It's worth a trial with a harsh policy (zero tolerance) to begin with and simply tell offenders beforehand what to expect; whether they be rioters or paedophiles etc.
I'm quite sure of one thing though: a Judge will be a lot less harsh and emotional than the victims of rioters or paedophiles would be.
Yeah, I think a six month period of zero tolerance & curfews on under 18's gathering in groups of more than 5 would have dramatic results personally.
The problem being it would take resources, which our current bunch of cunts in charge are reducing, not increasing.
The problem being it would take resources, which our current bunch of cunts in charge are reducing, not increasing.
[quote author=FoxForceFive link=topic=46360.msg1381537#msg1381537 date=1313660083]
Yeah, I think a six month period of zero tolerance & curfews on under 18's gathering in groups of more than 5 would have dramatic results personally.
The problem being it would take resources, which our current bunch of cunts in charge are reducing, not increasing.
[/quote]
Wouldn't be in favour of this; punishing all teenagers for a minorities mistake is morally wrong. Assuming they did have enough resources to ensure it was put in place, then you are only inviting teenagers to riot for an actual justified cause at a later stage. Some form of public service punishment would be much more beneficial in my opinion, preferably starting with some work in the clean-up operation.
What I still don't understand is the parents role in this. Who lets their children go out at night when buildings are being burned down and shops are on fire. Maybe the first night might have been hard to predict, but if little Timmy want to go for a bike ride on the second or third day at 9 or 10 at night, then surely it shouldn't be so hard to tell them to sit there ass down and watch tv instead?
Yeah, I think a six month period of zero tolerance & curfews on under 18's gathering in groups of more than 5 would have dramatic results personally.
The problem being it would take resources, which our current bunch of cunts in charge are reducing, not increasing.
[/quote]
Wouldn't be in favour of this; punishing all teenagers for a minorities mistake is morally wrong. Assuming they did have enough resources to ensure it was put in place, then you are only inviting teenagers to riot for an actual justified cause at a later stage. Some form of public service punishment would be much more beneficial in my opinion, preferably starting with some work in the clean-up operation.
What I still don't understand is the parents role in this. Who lets their children go out at night when buildings are being burned down and shops are on fire. Maybe the first night might have been hard to predict, but if little Timmy want to go for a bike ride on the second or third day at 9 or 10 at night, then surely it shouldn't be so hard to tell them to sit there ass down and watch tv instead?
[quote author=refugee link=topic=46360.msg1381627#msg1381627 date=1313667846]
[quote author=FoxForceFive link=topic=46360.msg1381537#msg1381537 date=1313660083]
Yeah, I think a six month period of zero tolerance & curfews on under 18's gathering in groups of more than 5 would have dramatic results personally.
The problem being it would take resources, which our current bunch of cunts in charge are reducing, not increasing.
[/quote]
Wouldn't be in favour of this; punishing all teenagers for a minorities mistake is morally wrong. Assuming they did have enough resources to ensure it was put in place, then you are only inviting teenagers to riot for an actual justified cause at a later stage. Some form of public service punishment would be much more beneficial in my opinion, preferably starting with some work in the clean-up operation.
What I still don't understand is the parents role in this. Who lets their children go out at night when buildings are being burned down and shops are on fire. Maybe the first night might have been hard to predict, but if little Timmy want to go for a bike ride on the second or third day at 9 or 10 at night, then surely it shouldn't be so hard to tell them to sit there ass down and watch tv instead?
[/quote]
Trouble is, too many of those parents take the line of least resistance right from the beginning when their kids kick off. If you start out doing that when your kids are very young, it becomes progressively more difficult to make a stand as time goes on.
[quote author=FoxForceFive link=topic=46360.msg1381537#msg1381537 date=1313660083]
Yeah, I think a six month period of zero tolerance & curfews on under 18's gathering in groups of more than 5 would have dramatic results personally.
The problem being it would take resources, which our current bunch of cunts in charge are reducing, not increasing.
[/quote]
Wouldn't be in favour of this; punishing all teenagers for a minorities mistake is morally wrong. Assuming they did have enough resources to ensure it was put in place, then you are only inviting teenagers to riot for an actual justified cause at a later stage. Some form of public service punishment would be much more beneficial in my opinion, preferably starting with some work in the clean-up operation.
What I still don't understand is the parents role in this. Who lets their children go out at night when buildings are being burned down and shops are on fire. Maybe the first night might have been hard to predict, but if little Timmy want to go for a bike ride on the second or third day at 9 or 10 at night, then surely it shouldn't be so hard to tell them to sit there ass down and watch tv instead?
[/quote]
Trouble is, too many of those parents take the line of least resistance right from the beginning when their kids kick off. If you start out doing that when your kids are very young, it becomes progressively more difficult to make a stand as time goes on.
S
Squiggles
Guest
[quote author=keniget link=topic=46360.msg1381322#msg1381322 date=1313590287]
Four years in jail for posting something on Facebook is absurd.
[/quote]
Of course it is, but who are we to question it?
Four years in jail for posting something on Facebook is absurd.
[/quote]
Of course it is, but who are we to question it?
[quote author=Rosco link=topic=46360.msg1381629#msg1381629 date=1313667945]
Aren't 80% of those convicted over the of 18?
[/quote]
Besides the point, IMO they're pretty much beyond hope over 18, stopping these scrotes whilst they're young is more important.
Aren't 80% of those convicted over the of 18?
[/quote]
Besides the point, IMO they're pretty much beyond hope over 18, stopping these scrotes whilst they're young is more important.
Just out of interest, what do people think of the following:
The Home Office say it costs £146 000 to put somebody through court and keep them in prison for a year.
It then costs a further £41 000 to keep a prisoner annually.
That means that between them these two blokes off Facebook are gonna cost us over half a million quid (£533 000 to be exact).
Value for money?
The Home Office say it costs £146 000 to put somebody through court and keep them in prison for a year.
It then costs a further £41 000 to keep a prisoner annually.
That means that between them these two blokes off Facebook are gonna cost us over half a million quid (£533 000 to be exact).
Value for money?
Only if they teach the fuckers to make a new train whilst they're in there to reduce the increase in rail fares.
That figure is shocking. Surely it'd be easier to pay someone to wake them up in their house every morning by punching them in the face & telling them how stupid they are? More satisfying too.
That figure is shocking. Surely it'd be easier to pay someone to wake them up in their house every morning by punching them in the face & telling them how stupid they are? More satisfying too.
[quote author=singlerider link=topic=46360.msg1381776#msg1381776 date=1313683599]
Just out of interest, what do people think of the following:
The Home Office say it costs £146 000 to put somebody through court and keep them in prison for a year.
It then costs a further £41 000 to keep a prisoner annually.
That means that between them these two blokes off Facebook are gonna cost us over half a million quid (£533 000 to be exact).
Value for money?
[/quote]
That is a staggering amount isn't it? What do they include in those figures out of interest?
The court costs might be lower given that they were tried together I would guess and it wasn't a very long and drawn out trial (though I'm sure the appeal would bump it up again).
What does the 41 grand a year go on? I read (admittedly a few years ago) that they fed prisoners on something like £2 each per day. Say that's gone up now that is still around £110 a day to keep each prisoner inside.
Just out of interest, what do people think of the following:
The Home Office say it costs £146 000 to put somebody through court and keep them in prison for a year.
It then costs a further £41 000 to keep a prisoner annually.
That means that between them these two blokes off Facebook are gonna cost us over half a million quid (£533 000 to be exact).
Value for money?
[/quote]
That is a staggering amount isn't it? What do they include in those figures out of interest?
The court costs might be lower given that they were tried together I would guess and it wasn't a very long and drawn out trial (though I'm sure the appeal would bump it up again).
What does the 41 grand a year go on? I read (admittedly a few years ago) that they fed prisoners on something like £2 each per day. Say that's gone up now that is still around £110 a day to keep each prisoner inside.
I have no idea.
Presumably it's an aggregate cost incorporating staff wages, upkeep of buildings etc and everything
Presumably it's an aggregate cost incorporating staff wages, upkeep of buildings etc and everything
[quote author=singlerider link=topic=46360.msg1381810#msg1381810 date=1313688135]
I have no idea.
Presumably it's an aggregate cost incorporating staff wages, upkeep of buildings etc and everything
[/quote]
So strictly speaking putting more people in prison would bring the average down then!
I have no idea.
Presumably it's an aggregate cost incorporating staff wages, upkeep of buildings etc and everything
[/quote]
So strictly speaking putting more people in prison would bring the average down then!
[quote author=Richey link=topic=46360.msg1381846#msg1381846 date=1313692237]
So strictly speaking putting more people in prison would bring the average down then!
[/quote]
Eggzackerley! You should have been an accountant Richey! We can prove whatever you want with figures.
In fact you could say that the marginal cost of putting an extra person in prison would be very little, provided you did not have to hire any more staff. 🙂
So strictly speaking putting more people in prison would bring the average down then!
[/quote]
Eggzackerley! You should have been an accountant Richey! We can prove whatever you want with figures.
In fact you could say that the marginal cost of putting an extra person in prison would be very little, provided you did not have to hire any more staff. 🙂
Bring back hanging.
[quote author=Squiggles link=topic=46360.msg1381675#msg1381675 date=1313672503]
[quote author=keniget link=topic=46360.msg1381322#msg1381322 date=1313590287]
Four years in jail for posting something on Facebook is absurd.
[/quote]
Of course it is, but who are we to question it?
[/quote]
What sentence should there be for inciting riot?
[quote author=keniget link=topic=46360.msg1381322#msg1381322 date=1313590287]
Four years in jail for posting something on Facebook is absurd.
[/quote]
Of course it is, but who are we to question it?
[/quote]
What sentence should there be for inciting riot?
Have they put a figure on how much damage was caused? Obviously it'd be hard to be exact, given that a lot of people who had their goods and property destroyed may end up on social welfare, and that may be hard to quantify as well as potential compensation. And that's not including potential loss from tourists and possibly companies investing in the areas affected.
I'd guess it's a huge amount though, and the people that incited this riot should be held accountable for it at whatever cost, to try ensure something like this is prevented from happening in the future.
I'd guess it's a huge amount though, and the people that incited this riot should be held accountable for it at whatever cost, to try ensure something like this is prevented from happening in the future.
As an arbitrary figure I've just plucked from the sky (that I've a feeling I may have heard bandied about, but am not sure) I reckon a couple of hundred million quid should cover it easy.
As perspective, let us consider the figures for the bank bailout run between £850bn to £1.2trillion, let's call it a nice round trillion.
So, That's:
£200 000 000
VS
£1 000 000 000 000
But the rioters should get their benefits taken away whilst the bankers are still collecting their bonuses.
We are *mental*
EDIT: I've just Googled it, they reckon £100M, so let's stick with a couple of hundred to be safe
As perspective, let us consider the figures for the bank bailout run between £850bn to £1.2trillion, let's call it a nice round trillion.
So, That's:
£200 000 000
VS
£1 000 000 000 000
But the rioters should get their benefits taken away whilst the bankers are still collecting their bonuses.
We are *mental*
EDIT: I've just Googled it, they reckon £100M, so let's stick with a couple of hundred to be safe
I haven't seen much in the news recently - so can we assume the rioting is finished? If so, what stopped it?
[quote author=Richey link=topic=46360.msg1381846#msg1381846 date=1313692237]
[quote author=singlerider link=topic=46360.msg1381810#msg1381810 date=1313688135]
I have no idea.
Presumably it's an aggregate cost incorporating staff wages, upkeep of buildings etc and everything
[/quote]
So strictly speaking putting more people in prison would bring the average down then!
[/quote]
haha
Lets encourage overcrowding.
[quote author=singlerider link=topic=46360.msg1381810#msg1381810 date=1313688135]
I have no idea.
Presumably it's an aggregate cost incorporating staff wages, upkeep of buildings etc and everything
[/quote]
So strictly speaking putting more people in prison would bring the average down then!
[/quote]
haha
Lets encourage overcrowding.
[quote author=LeTallecWiz link=topic=46360.msg1382014#msg1382014 date=1313745356]
I haven't seen much in the news recently - so can we assume the rioting is finished? If so, what stopped it?
[/quote]
The 100% off sale finished.
Unsustainable business model apparently
I haven't seen much in the news recently - so can we assume the rioting is finished? If so, what stopped it?
[/quote]
The 100% off sale finished.
Unsustainable business model apparently
[quote author=refugee link=topic=46360.msg1382016#msg1382016 date=1313745491]
[quote author=Richey link=topic=46360.msg1381846#msg1381846 date=1313692237]
[quote author=singlerider link=topic=46360.msg1381810#msg1381810 date=1313688135]
I have no idea.
Presumably it's an aggregate cost incorporating staff wages, upkeep of buildings etc and everything
[/quote]
So strictly speaking putting more people in prison would bring the average down then!
[/quote]
haha
Lets encourage overcrowding.
[/quote]
They already are - 600 people locked up over the last week and the prisons are getting to the stage where they're saying 3 to a cell
[quote author=Richey link=topic=46360.msg1381846#msg1381846 date=1313692237]
[quote author=singlerider link=topic=46360.msg1381810#msg1381810 date=1313688135]
I have no idea.
Presumably it's an aggregate cost incorporating staff wages, upkeep of buildings etc and everything
[/quote]
So strictly speaking putting more people in prison would bring the average down then!
[/quote]
haha
Lets encourage overcrowding.
[/quote]
They already are - 600 people locked up over the last week and the prisons are getting to the stage where they're saying 3 to a cell
Similar threads
-
- Locked
