Dunno, why, do you recognise either of the names?
UK Riots (with the exception of Manchester which has its own thread)
- Thread starter CLK_FPC
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
Why would you be delighted that two people have been sentenced to length of time in prison? I fully acknowledge, these two idiots behaved in an irresponsible manner, that could have encouraged people to lose any sense of free will and cause civil unrest.
But why the delight? is it the 300k and additional legal fees it will cost the tax payer, that delights you?
I cant see how any satisfaction can be gained from any aspect of whole affair. People lost lives,homes,and their livelihoods. Imprisoning two spastics for displaying immature bravado on the bloody internet..goes no way to even begin rectifying that.
It is simply a knee jerk response to satisfy the masses, meanwhile the reasons behind the behavior are conveniently swept back into the cracks of our already fractured and faltering communities.
You worry me, the fact that you hold a minority opinion on the caf is a source of comfort though.
Have these "two spastics" stated the reasons behind their behaviour then?
Hopefully, a lot of people seem to be very unaware of how serious the consequences can be for actions on the internet. I assume the same thing, if not, it's just madness.
I was thinking, we have to have one looter or rioters on here, odds are just too high.
If only the first rapist had been sentenced to a thousand years. Or the first hacker executed.
because its a written form, its always been that way with newspapers for example
its just that forum posters in particular seem to think that they wont get caught or taken up on it, such as the lad who was slandering the Sheff Wednesday owner
Don't think I've ever committed a crime. Not because I'm "terrified" of the consequences either, but because I know it's the wrong thing to be doing. The whole "scaring the populace into obeying the law" is a bit too Gestapo-ish for me.
I couldn't tell you, but i am sure experts could list numerous theories.
I'd put it down to immaturity combined with bravado. I was referring to the groups of youth roaming through my own community mugging, looting and trashing Hackney.
The same sections of society that will continue to behave inappropriately in our communities, long after this is all forgotten about.
Governments are always going to be wary of citizens' ability to contact each other swiftly, for whatever reason.
Because I'm sick of hearing examples of criminals who aren't being punished severely enough. The only good thing to come from these riots is that British politics seems to be moving to the right, especially on law and order. Which brings me to Afrocentricty:
I may be in a minority on this forum but that's largely because the vocal posters in the general are broadly just to the right of Shami Chakrabarti. You really think most law-abiding people in England are against severe punishments for rioters?
I wouldn't be against life imprisonment for rapists, keep them locked away for the safety of normal people. I have always said that the death penalty isn't practicable. I know you're being facetious but if you gave ten year sentences for hacking I strongly suspect you would see less hacking.
If the punishment for drink driving was a slap on the wrist do you think most people would continue to obey that law?
It's completely inconsistent, which is part of my problem with it. It's exceptionalist. It's being done to "prove a point" which is a terrible way to treat individual cases of law. Just as law in this country (or any country) shouldn't be based on revenge or the perverse desire to see punishment enacted, it also shouldn't be based on exceptionist bandwagon jumping where one person can get a sentence because something was in the news that's far longer than someone who genuinely commits an actual physical crime of greater significance later down the line that isn't on the front page or being bayed for by the public..
It hugely depressed me watching Question Time last week, to see the amount of people who didn't give a shit about the long term consequences of kicking people out of their flats or stopping their benefits, and just wanted to see them flogged and horsewhipped to satisfy their knee jerk anger....The amount of people who can't see that overly harsh or over the top punishment will only lead to more riots down the line is baffling. It's all about them feeling satisfied or superior IMO.
I'm not saying don't punish them, but 4 years is completely out of whack will all kinds of common sense and perspective.
Well yes, because you're a reactionary, bandwagon jumping punishment fetishist.
Couldn't agree with that more Mockney. Especially the QT point, I just can't understand it.
It's a difficult one, because the looting and burning was quite bad, and you have to send a message that the State has control over violence between citizens.
I don't think the way to do that is through sentencing though. It's through policing riots and then bringing as many people as you can to trial. Beyond that, the law has to be consistent and outside the political sphere.
The fundamental problem then needs to be addressed, which is why there's a class of people who don't feel part of the society. Otherwise you can't stop the riots (because prison doesn't stop crime), and eventually you get a revolution.
I don't think the way to do that is through sentencing though. It's through policing riots and then bringing as many people as you can to trial. Beyond that, the law has to be consistent and outside the political sphere.
The fundamental problem then needs to be addressed, which is why there's a class of people who don't feel part of the society. Otherwise you can't stop the riots (because prison doesn't stop crime), and eventually you get a revolution.
Are we all so ignorant of English history? The response to just about any incident of unrest has virtually always been draconian, vindictive and agenda-driven. You don't have to be 'to the right of Shami Chakrabarti' to understand this: you just have to know your history. There's plenty of consistency on display here, even allowing for ad-hoc, cashing-in-on-a-crisis opportunism - the establishment have always reacted in this manner and, ironically, tragically, the brainwashed public has often lapped it up and supported the establishment's 'solutions.'
Again, look at the targets of this government's wrath: the so-called underclass; benefits claimants; inconvenient lower-class tenants in areas ripe for 'redevelopment'; people who wouldn't ordinarily vote for the Conservative party; people whose rights are protected by Health & Safety and Human Rights legislation; 'useless eaters' all.
Very few people here are defending the rioters/looters - and rightfully so - but, thankfully, it seems that some of us see through the sham being played-out before us. The riots were a godsend to certain parties, make no mistake. Know your history.
Again, look at the targets of this government's wrath: the so-called underclass; benefits claimants; inconvenient lower-class tenants in areas ripe for 'redevelopment'; people who wouldn't ordinarily vote for the Conservative party; people whose rights are protected by Health & Safety and Human Rights legislation; 'useless eaters' all.
Very few people here are defending the rioters/looters - and rightfully so - but, thankfully, it seems that some of us see through the sham being played-out before us. The riots were a godsend to certain parties, make no mistake. Know your history.
Well yes, but as you say it's not through sentencing, which will only cause problematic precedents and complications down the line...Not to mention yet more chips on the shoulders of people who live with perpetual chips all over their upper extremities..
The fact they arrested so many so quickly, and got so many through the courts in such a short space of time was good I thought. That sent out a message. Many rioting thought they wouldn't get caught plain as, because there were so many doing it. Not that it didn't matter if they were because "prison's a holiday camp, I'll get off lightly etc etc" and all that nonsense...
Being caught and tried for the crime you committed is the deterrent. You saw how once the police were on the streets, and people were seen to have been arrested, the whole thing stopped sharpish...
I don't believe sentences like this are deterring anyone. People would be deterred by a 1 year sentence. I know people who've been in prison, believe me, they don't want to go back, even for a month. It's only the hardcore timers and big wigs who "don't mind" it. All this is doing is satisfying the punishment fetishists.
Does drink driving have a ridiculously over the top sentence these days, since that is what was being discussed? Punishments should be judged fairly on their own merit, not weighted in favour of the "deterrent" side. If people are deterred by what is seen as a fair punishment, fine. The point isn't to set out to "scare" people into obeying the law.
Yep, the rush of arrests certainly helped, and the speed of justice if you like was what probably had the biggest effect. Within a day some were being sentenced, and when the whole process is happening that swiftly, then others are always going to be detered.
Same here, a one year sentence or a four year one probably isn't going to make a difference to actually deterring people, and my experience of people who have been inside is the same, it doesn't matter how long, one day, month or year, they never, ever want to go back.
One of the worst things about this is the solutions or punishments being suggested, and the reaction they receive. I didn't think people were generally either that niave, or unaware to think that chucking families out, or cutting benefits is going to have any sort of positive effect. It's actually a bit retarded.
I dunno, I think deterrent effect is an important part of weighing up punishments.
But you don't do that on the fly in response to recent events and an effort to influence mass behaviour in the short term, I don't think. That way lies highly politicised law courts...
As long as the resulting punishments are seen as fair and appropriate for the crime. My point was that you shouldn't justify a sentence with it, since that's a particularly slippery slope that probably has large and ominous spikes at the bottom.
You say that as though this isn't already the case.
The way these riots have been used as an exercise in political point-scoring is one of the most depressing things about them. I don't think it's a new phenomenon to see the laws of the land being abused for political ends, mind you. Wasn't it only a week or so ago when we were all discussing a pissed up student being sent to jail for, shock horror, swinging on a flag?
Saying they don't understand is understating it. They don't want to understand. They don't want to see it from the point of view of anyone else, or for it's long term effects, they see it (and want to see it) as faceless yobs getting their just deserts. The people I know who've been inside are (by and large) all decent, genuinely self improving people. But to see how much their chances are restricted and much of their life defined by their record is depressing. It's so easy to say they deserved it, but in at least one case, I've been guilty of the same thing.
One guy I know (who wasn't inside for dealing) came out and started dealing after a while, because even though he wanted to work in and eventually try and set up his own graphic design studio (which he is sort of doing now, with some help from the council) he couldn't get work through any of the normal channels, or the money for both it and his 7 year old son, from anywhere else, because he'd just been in prison. Yes it's easy to say he could try harder to do other, more legal things, and he could. But it would've been 10x harder than it would be for anyone else. And if you know him, you'd know he's a decent, loyal, fun bloke, who just sees this as the quickest way to get by at the moment because there's so little out there for him. He wants out of it too. He isn't doing it for fun, and a little spending money. He's doing it (or was) because it was genuinely one of the most realistic options he had.
And if he'd been caught and hauled back in on a second offence, someone on Question Time, or on a forum, who'd never met him, or had no idea of circumstances like his, could just easily dismiss him as a repeat offender who should be harshly dealt with, whilst they sit quite happily without ever having paid for a mistake they made, and never been made to rely on other peoples generosity for the rest of their lives because of it.
A stupid, youthful bit of idiocy and you've got a record. Thats all it takes. And then getting a break is a pain in the arse for the rest of your life.
Now I'm not saying no one should be punished for this. The rioting was ridiculous and everyone involved in looting and stealing and burning and all that should be dealt with, with those guilty of the worst crimes given prison sentences without question. But it seems endemic of some people to just want to lock people up for any law breaking or anti-social behaviour, and any attempts to deal with it in another way, or even try to give people second chances for mistakes or understand their motivations is seen as liberal fannying when what these bastards need is discipline. It's short sighted, and also very base and selfish IMO. And also hugely frustrating.
All fine and well but it seems too much emphasis is dealing with the symptoms and not the cause. We just seem to be in this endless cycle of reacting to individual cases and asking for further punishment.
Mockers, just because you haven't been caught for the same 'offence' doesnt make it right. It just makes you lucky and the other guy unlucky
I agree completely...My point being that if I had been caught, (for a little jill dealing during Uni fwiw) my life would be completely different and loads of the opportunities I've had would've been taken away from me as a result. Making my life much harder, and my attempts to legitimise myself far more of an uphill struggle.
Hence why I find people wanting to throw away the book at some of these people so distasteful.
Hence why I find people wanting to throw away the book at some of these people so distasteful.
What's Jill dealing?
They did seem to be actually trying to organise an actual riot, time and place included rather than merely shouting "Anarchy In The UK". That said the sentence seems entirely disproportionate and out of line with normal sentencing.
Some would say that Northwich and Warrington would be improved by a riot but that is an argument for a different day.
Does anyone know the antencendence of these two facebook hardmen?
If they had considerable Criminal history for damaging property, stealing, arson etc then the sentences might well be appropriate.
If people can't live within the law and are a dnager to the Public then they need to have their freedom removed.
If they had considerable Criminal history for damaging property, stealing, arson etc then the sentences might well be appropriate.
If people can't live within the law and are a dnager to the Public then they need to have their freedom removed.
Northwich is a hideous place and full of scousers .......
Pimping...
More specifically, pimping underage rent-boys to the mentally ill
That was my point, speaking personally it's only the ott punishment that stops me driving home after anything over two pints. I'm sure I'm not alone in thinking that way, severe punishments work as deterrents for many crimes. Of course there are exceptions; I have always said that rapists and paedo's aren't logical so you can't use punishments to deter them.
I object to "bandwagon jumping". If you'd asked me before the riots I would have still wanted stricter sentencing and more criminals in prison. There's nothing like the undeserved smugness of bleeding-heart liberals like yourself.
I object to "bandwagon jumping". If you'd asked me before the riots I would have still wanted stricter sentencing and more criminals in prison. There's nothing like the undeserved smugness of bleeding-heart liberals like yourself.
Bleeding heart is such a stupid term. Having empathy and attempting to understand the actions of others is a good trait in people. I've got no qualms with it. It's clearly better than stone hearted isn't it? I've never said people should get off scot free for this. The people who burned down shops/flats should get harsh punishment. But they should get the same punishment as anyone else who burned down something. These people shouldn't be treated differently just because the public are baying for it now. That's mob rule. It serves no one but the people who want the punishing done. It doesn't make anyone safer, unless you're of the opinion that those involved are a lower form of human who can't help themselves and would just run around burning things the second they're let out. I'm not of that view. In fact I'm of the view that the more inconsistent you make the punishment, the more aggrieved the punished will feel. Which will lead to more instances like this down the line. If that makes me "bleeding heart" then so be it.
........................
Mike's not underage.
Pills.
Honestly, if you can't see that there's an agenda behind labels like 'Bleeding-heart liberals,' 'Pc gone mad,' 'Health & Safety lunacy,' 'Human Rights fiasco' etc etc etc, then there's no hope. Do you think that Tory-funded newspapers have blazing headlines of this kind - let alone the stereotypical 'BENEFITS SCROUNGER LIVING IN DIAMOND HOUSE WHICH YOUR HARD-EARNED MONEY PAID FOR!' stories - by accident? No: this is policy, this is propaganda. And those who would profit most from an end to 'bleeding-heart' attitudes are responsible for it.
Personally I enjoy using the term "bleeding-heart liberal". It allows me to smugly dismiss your views the way most liberals smugly (and lazily) dismiss anything remotely right-wing as somehow associated with Nazi Germany.
But Nazi Germany (not that I've done that) is a horrible thing to be associated with...Having a caring heart, isn't. If anything it's a compliment.
