E-Petition

IronWolf

jamespir wrote: »

what is the point of taking away their benefits it will only cause them to riot more and steal more

Although I agree with the being held to ransom remarks, I can't see any other way this would turn out. People not getting any money will have no choice but to steal just to survive, and you have just possibly turned occasional criminals into career criminals.

I'm in favour of an alternate punishment used in the army years ago

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Running_the_gauntlet

The gauntlet. Let the communities they've been looting punish them for it.

Jennifer_Jane

IronWolf wrote: »

Although I agree with the being held to ransom remarks, I can't see any other way this would turn out. People not getting any money will have no choice but to steal just to survive, and you have just possibly turned occasional criminals into career criminals.

I'm in favour of an alternate punishment used in the army years ago

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Running_the_gauntlet

The gauntlet. Let the communities they've been looting punish them for it.

Ouch! .

StevieJ

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Oh a poor rioter giving it large to riot police got hit by a police batton.....twice!!

Boo fricking hoo.

No, not what I was referring to..

Really2

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Oh a poor rioter giving it large to riot police got hit by a police batton.....twice!!

Boo fricking hoo.

In my eyes being hit by a police officer for looting and arson and generally impeding every other law biding citizen is not even an argument, they deserve what they get.

Who honestly thinks on here that was over the top? The police have a right to defend or uphold the law. If that means hitting them I see no problem.
If you are not doing wrong you won't be hit. It is a fairly simple for anyone committing a crime to avoid such actions by not committing crime.

I am surprised people think that it should be dealt with without physical intervention?

Really2

StevieJ wrote: »

No, not what I was referring to..

I am interested in what video you saw as the vast majority seem to show people looting without a care with their faces covered?

I would of thought the very fact looting was allowed to take and the victims could not rely on police help them by any means by default means the looters were more protected than the victims?

The fact that some then portray publishing photos of them is against their human rights just shows how nuts as a country we have gone.

Ark_Welder

What about the rioters that are not on benefits?

Out,_Vile_Jelly

The petition is misspelt, clumsily worded and not actually very practical when you think about it, but it's trying to raise a point about the debate that is needed about the responsibilities that come with rights and "entitlements".

Really2

Ark_Welder wrote: »

What about the rioters that are not on benefits?

Presumably they would be sacked instantly?

iB1

I'm not signing the petition, 'cos it's stoopid, but I'm fascinated by how many signatures it'll get! It's got until February next year

StevieJ

Really2 wrote: »

In my eyes being hit by a police officer for looting and arson and generally impeding every other law biding citizen is not even an argument, they deserve what they get.

Who honestly thinks on here that was over the top? The police have a right to defend or uphold the law. If that means hitting them I see no problem.
If you are not doing wrong you won't be hit. It is a fairly simple for anyone committing a crime to avoid such actions by not committing crime.

I am surprised people think that it should be dealt with without physical intervention?

That would be fine if you hadn't inferred in your previous post that it wasn't happening