General discussion for (Tottenham) riots

Graham_Devon

StevieJ wrote: »

I saw a guy who had been arrested for wearing garden gloves and a balaclava who had been referred to crown court presumably for a sentence over 6 months, good job it isn't winter :eek: When I was a kid I told my mummy it wasn't fair that I had to wear one of those

Lots of these have outstanding crimes to pay for. That's already been mentioned, so they obviously get longer sentences due to being found in court, after a none appearance earlier.

Some of the sentences are not solely for the rioting. That needs to be understood before (and the left of the debate tried to do this too) suggesting people ARE getting longer sentences for the rioting.

They are getting longer sentences due to multiple offences.

It was the police themselves saying people are walking out after 2 days, which is outrageous and undermines the police.

vivatifosi

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Lots of these have outstanding crimes to pay for.

Indeed they do, one was an estate agent:eek:.

StevieJ

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Lots of these have outstanding crimes to pay for. That's already been mentioned, so they obviously get longer sentences due to being found in court, after a none appearance earlier.

Some of the sentences are not solely for the rioting. That needs to be understood before (and the left of the debate tried to do this too) suggesting people ARE getting longer sentences for the rioting.

They are getting longer sentences due to multiple offences.

It was the police themselves saying people are walking out after 2 days, which is outrageous and undermines the police.

I am pretty sure they will be first time offenders that tend to get non-custodial sentences normally, or do you think they should get longer sentences than would normally be appropriate? BTW was that multiple balaclava wearing offences I take it the fashion police were out there as well.

StevieJ

Can you imagine having to attend the courts today to appeal against a 3 points and a speeding fine :eek:

ruggedtoast

adouglasmhor wrote: »

I really despise people who think rape is part of a punishment. You need help mate.

Booty?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n9WClv4U5B8

fc123

pqrdef wrote: »

We could just adopt Sharia and have done with it. Not that Islam prevents rioting, but looters can't do much more looting with their hands chopped off. Reverting to the Middle Ages is always an option. Took us centuries to get away from that, and we thought it was enlightenment and progress.

It could be said that it shows some parts of 'human nature' don't change through the years either and whatever 'solution' is brought in, it won't prevent people doing bad things, thieving and harming their fellow man.
The death sentence didn't stop people murdering people either and and eye for an eye makes everyone blind IMO..Ghandi's saying I believe.

StevieJ wrote: »

Interesting that modern technology that is blamed for the riots will be responsible for most of the arrests, classic example is the guy who fired Selfridges.

I take back my post on not all thiick as some obviously are.
What a total idiot. There were several people filming him if you look at other YT on the incident...but he was so self obsessed he didn't seem to notice. Also, had to be clueless to the fact that arson is a very serious offence too.

If I was going to blame one thing I would 'blame' computer games as they train to brain to *start again*. Almost like embedding no conseqences mindset. In the game you get shot, you die, you press re-start and begin again all fresh and new.
Stupid lad is going to learn that in Real Life, there are often no second chances. What if someone had been living above the shop?

dtsazza wrote: »

There's been some talk of cutting off their benefits as a punishment.

While this may sound controversial, I do wonder whether dropping all benefits altogether wouldn't make things work better in general.

The way that personal economics and, well, life work in general is that you produce something that you're relatively good at producing, and then swap some(/most) of it for things that other people have produced. We have "money" as a middleman but it's effectively a deferred barter system.

Given that, does it really make any sense that people who create nothing get given things from other people? One could certainly argue that a lot of the problems boil down to a lack of responsibility - those who were interviewed and who expressed an opinion on why they weren't playing "by the book" mentioned that they could get what they needed on benefits, and so saw no reason to become productive members of society.

.)

It's unlikely and it's not going to happen either. Also, how do you know the main looters were actually on benefits? I haven't seen any stats. Most looked like school kids to me.

The central London riots were made up of all sorts

Pink Floyd Guitarist's Son Sentenced To 16 Months In Jail Due To London Riot!
Just another sad reminder that actions have consequences. Charlie Gilmour, the son of Pink Floyd guitarist David Gilmore, was sentenced to 16 months in jail today after he reportedly dropped acid, took a valium, and participated in attacking a Jaguar included in Prince Charles and Camilla's motorcade during a student riot in London last year, during [...]
Just another sad reminder that actions have consequences.

StevieJ

Watching QT, why do people compare mass looting with the protests at the G20? Prescott looks like he is due a heart attack :eek:

vivatifosi

Just watching Sky News interviewing an amazing woman (Louise Smith) from Wolverhampton who stood on her doorstep and faced down the crowd rioting there. She refused to leave her store and screamed abuse at them and told them they weren't having her shop. Apparently when she was giving them a piece of her mind - she's quite badass so I can imagine it was a bit like the other woman in Hackney - the rioters told her not to swear!

pqrdef

dtsazza wrote: »

those who were interviewed and who expressed an opinion on why they weren't playing "by the book" mentioned that they could get what they needed on benefits, and so saw no reason to become productive members of society.

They would say that, wouldn't they. It's sour grapes. People who don't have a mansion or a yacht generally know why they wouldn't want one - until they win the lottery. And people without a job decide they'd be stupid to want a job.

Don't ask them to explain themselves and expect an articulate philosophy.

dtsazza wrote: »

Why do we want to let people share in the fruits of society, without them doing their part to produce fruit for the rest of us?

But if they're not capable of "doing their part", what do you plan to do with them?

Modern employment is demanding. Employers want regular reliable well-adjusted workers who can give 100% all the time. Many people aren't up to it. They have a huge variety of handicaps and chronic ailments, both physical and mental, which vary in intensity. Some days are good days, other days they're distinctly under par. Perhaps their condition kept them awake last night and now they're too tired to think straight. Employers don't want people who're distinctly under par, they can get somebody else.

There used to be casual work, piecework, and low-paid but undemanding jobs, which allowed people to do as much as they could do. These things are rare now. People are employable or they aren't with nothing in between, and that makes a lot of people unemployable.

CLAPTON

pqrdef wrote: »

They would say that, wouldn't they. It's sour grapes. People who don't have a mansion or a yacht generally know why they wouldn't want one - until they win the lottery. And people without a job decide they'd be stupid to want a job.

Don't ask them to explain themselves and expect an articulate philosophy.


But if they're not capable of "doing their part", what do you plan to do with them?

Modern employment is demanding. Employers want regular reliable well-adjusted workers who can give 100% all the time. Many people aren't up to it. They have a huge variety of handicaps and chronic ailments, both physical and mental, which vary in intensity. Some days are good days, other days they're distinctly under par. Perhaps their condition kept them awake last night and now they're too tired to think straight. Employers don't want people who're distinctly under par, they can get somebody else.

There used to be casual work, piecework, and low-paid but undemanding jobs, which allowed people to do as much as they could do. These things are rare now. People are employable or they aren't with nothing in between, and that makes a lot of people unemployable.

there are lots of jobs that can accommodate people with different abilities and wishes

loads of part time jobs:- most of retail, cafes and restaurants, care workers, nhs, lots of teaching jobs all allow part time workers

one of the major problems for lower paid jobs is the the benefits system doesn't make it worthwhile to work; we need to scrape the minimum wage and reduce benefits to get people back into work; only then will the cycle of unemployment be broken