Council evictions begin

julieq

You don't solve a problem by kicking it downstream, which is all this does. In fact it's likely to make things worse because it won't take much for anyone to realise that collective punishment is likely to contravene human rights legislation and set up a test case which the government will lose.

And this stops people doing the decent thing and handing themselves in, or handing their children in, because those in council housing run the risk of losing their home. Utterly lunatic.

There are perfectly good punishments available for rioting and theft. We don't need more than those. The rioting has stopped.

julieq

Wookster wrote: »

You are very much mistaken.

People with jobs and professions have everything to lose in collateral damage if they offend - misbehave and you get sacked from work, struck off by your professional body, lose your house because you can't keep up with the rent or mortgage.

These people have none of these things to lose - infact the only thing they have to lose are there benefits and it is right that they lose them. Furthermore they have broken their contract with the society that supports them and they need to be severely punished.

Sorry, we are talking about COLLECTIVE PUNISHMENT here. That is, punishment merely because of assocation with a rioter.

You don't lose your job or your home because your son drives his BMW over a central reservation and kills a family of 4. There is no logic or consistency whatsoever in extending responsibility to parents for the misguided actions of a child caught up in a riot, not least given that these events happened extremely quickly and there was very little opportunity for anyone to take stock.

To read some of the nonsense on this thread you'd think that this was a sort of last straw moment, and the only people rioting were from sink estates and were on benefits. That's not supported by the evidence from the court lists. These were normal people from all sorts of backgrounds and they should be punished to the full extent of the law and take the consequences. But to decide some of them merit more punishment because they come from some sort of underclass that has irritated us in the past is ridiculous.

julieq

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Can't believe you have the nerve to suggest that, after suggesting others want these people, and 8 year old girls chucked out on the street and dieing in the winter.

You've linked riots to speeding, which is absurd. No one speeding PURPOSELY runs themselves into buildings and PURPOSELY aims at pedestrians. These people purposely set fire to, vandalised, and stole items.

Sense & proportion? Should use it yourself and stop trying to trivalise these riots, murder, bodily harm, stealing and vandalism.

Sorry Graham, speeding is a crime. If there was no speeding, thousands of people less would die on the roads. But people still do it.

I was discussing group psychology anyway. The same psychology that leads people to feel it's acceptable to drive at 40 in a 30 zone (everyone else does it) is what is behind normal people going into a wrecked shop and taking things (everyone else is doing it) or any one of a myriad of examples. The fact that you feel an activity that kills thousands of people is somehow less criminal than one that killed 5 people at the last count demonstrates precisely your warped sense of perspective. But that's no surprise, because we all do the same thing. If your peer group says its OK and the consequences appear acceptable, the evidence is you can rationalise almost anything.

And there's nothing lacking perspective about me pointing out that this wasn't the blitz, so that courses of action which will at the limit force hundreds or thousands of families out on the streets are disproportionate. I was reacting to someone suggesting people shouldn't be rehoused and should have benefits stripped, which will if it happened (and it won't) cause people to die on the streets or a general increase in crime. Unless you think no homeless people die in cold weather.

And to the person who called me a liberal, well that's certainly a first. I'm very comfortable with rioters receiving exemplary sentences. But let's temper that with a bit of common sense and not get into a lynch mob mentality.

leveller2911

julieq wrote: »

There are perfectly good punishments available for rioting and theft. We don't need more than those. The rioting has stopped.

Are you sure about that? Given the fact that theft is and has been increasing year on year.Just my opinion but the punishments obviously aren't working ........ Take a look at the statistics ,Crimestoppers website is pretty good.....;)

They don't have any problems in Saudi Arabia with thieving....Criminals only ever commit theft twice.....:D

StevieJ

leveller2911 wrote: »

Are you sure about that? Given the fact that theft is and has been increasing year on year.Just my opinion but the punishments obviously aren't working ........ Take a look at the statistics ,Crimestoppers website is pretty good.....;)

They don't have any problems in Saudi Arabia with thieving....Criminals only ever commit theft twice.....:D

Just picking up on the point Julie made about peer group influence, how much is stolen from the entertainment industry in illegal downloads of films and music? I don't know the stats on whether people think this is OK but I bet the numbers who don't think it is a crime are quite high, it is of course costing the industry a fortune. And I bet they are at in in Saudi Arabia as well

julieq

It's a separate issue as to whether punishments are appropriate here, or whether we're robust enough when dealing with low level antisocial behaviour. I'd be the first to say that standards of behaviour are falling back and there is a generalised loss of respect for authority or rules of society.

But if you increase punishments, it should be even handed, so that a graphic designer from Hackney gets the same as an uneducated unemployed kid from a sink estate. That's the issue here, and the idea that there is guilt by association.

leveller2911

StevieJ wrote: »

Just picking up on the point Julie made about peer group influence, how much is stolen from the entertainment industry in illegal downloads of films and music? I don't know the stats on whether people think this is OK but I bet the numbers who don't think it is a crime are quite high, it is of course costing the industry a fortune. And I bet they are at in in Saudi Arabia as well

Personally I don't regard illegal downloading of music on a par with beating up a shopowner and stealing Plasma TV's from his shop. Its all about scale of seriousness for me but I guess I'm open to being called a hypocrite..

julieq

You're pulling in the worst examples and putting them against run of the mill examples. Most shops weren't burned in the riots and most shopkeepers weren't beaten up.

But measure an illegal download of music against stealing of CDs and you have a much more difficult circle to square. If I walk through the broken window of a shop and take a CD, I am now liable to lose my home. If I download that same CD via piratebay without leaving my house then a different moral code is deemed to apply.

No-one is saying that there isn't a scale of seriousness anyway. The difficulty is applying it on an even handed and level headed basis: steal a CD from my house in a burglary and frankly I want you killed. I am wrong to want you killed, which is why the courts exist to attempt to find a common level of retribution and restoration. I want the courts to decide on punishments, not the general public exercising its own prejudices egged on by the tabloid press and supported by opportunistic politicians.

CLAPTON

julieq wrote: »

You're pulling in the worst examples and putting them against run of the mill examples. Most shops weren't burned in the riots and most shopkeepers weren't beaten up.

But measure an illegal download of music against stealing of CDs and you have a much more difficult circle to square. If I walk through the broken window of a shop and take a CD, I am now liable to lose my home. If I download that same CD via piratebay without leaving my house then a different moral code is deemed to apply.

No-one is saying that there isn't a scale of seriousness anyway. The difficulty is applying it on an even handed and level headed basis: steal a CD from my house in a burglary and frankly I want you killed. I am wrong to want you killed, which is why the courts exist to attempt to find a common level of retribution and restoration. I want the courts to decide on punishments, not the general public exercising its own prejudices egged on by the tabloid press and supported by opportunistic politicians.

you are wrong

if some-one breaks into your home then they should be killed (as it's cheaper than locking them up for life); obviously exceptions apply

IronWolf

julieq wrote: »

You're pulling in the worst examples and putting them against run of the mill examples. Most shops weren't burned in the riots and most shopkeepers weren't beaten up.

But measure an illegal download of music against stealing of CDs and you have a much more difficult circle to square. If I walk through the broken window of a shop and take a CD, I am now liable to lose my home. If I download that same CD via piratebay without leaving my house then a different moral code is deemed to apply.

No-one is saying that there isn't a scale of seriousness anyway. The difficulty is applying it on an even handed and level headed basis: steal a CD from my house in a burglary and frankly I want you killed. I am wrong to want you killed, which is why the courts exist to attempt to find a common level of retribution and restoration. I want the courts to decide on punishments, not the general public exercising its own prejudices egged on by the tabloid press and supported by opportunistic politicians.

Not true, the seriousness of a crime is not just about what is stolen, it is where its stolen and how its stolen. You picked a bad example which shows the gaping hole in your logic. Burglary and robbery are two different crimes, someone may steal a CD in both cases, but burglary holds a much stiffer sentence as you're breaking into someones home.

And your argument about disproportionate punishment to council tenants is laughable. People living in council houses deserve no more than working people, yet they get council houses for life while the rest of us have to actually pay our way through life. What about the law abiding citizens that are waiting for a council house? Do you think criminals deserve it more than them?

And last time I checked people are not convicted by judges for serious crimes, they are convicted by a jury of their peers, you know the general public who you say should have no say in justice. And the judge then decides on a sentence based on law, written by politicians. So I dnot know where you've got your rose tinted view of the justice system from.