What do you think about the way people have been treated by the courts ofver the riots, I personally think it demonstrates what kind of culture the UK has become, our freedoms have evaporated and we have become a nation of fear and brutality, the government has stripped us of any rights we once held, and I can understand why people rioted, but maybe I shouldn't say that as I might face 4 years in jail for demonstrating free speech

Edited August 18, 201113 yr by kindagood

But rioting isn't demonstrating free speech...

 

I'm not following you at all, are you suggesting that rioting was a method of challenging supposed fear and brutality?

What I am suggesting is that civil disobedience has always been a valid form of rebellion, and although the riots have been portrayed as layabouts on the rampage they are anything but, instead the people involved have been excessively punished, much less than Mps fpr example who have rorted the system or the fat cat traders who through excesses destroyed the UKs banks and got away with the govenment bailing them out.... instead the people on the fringe of society are severly punished when they demonstrate their anger (wether rightly or wrongly)more so than if they were part of the wealthy elite

Theft =/= free speech. There are reasons why these riots occurred but that doesn't mean you can dismiss the damage that has been done to some communities by them.

 

Nonetheless, some of these sentences are ridiculous. Four years in prison for a Facebook event? 18 months for a student nicking a bottle of water?

I can actually understand giving long sentences for organisation of it via Facebook, even if the two guys probably are being made an example of.

 

The stealing a bottle of water thing though, how on earth did they arrive at 18 months?!!!

but tell me what damage has been done to our communties by the banks that excessivley pursued profit over good sense, and who has been punished for that, and while I don't agree whith looting shops, I think the two men jailed for four years who did not take part in the riots but suggested people should riot in their areas on facebook, have had their freedom of expression stripped from them, and have been too severly punished considering they are first offenders, and we should all be able to express views repugnent to the establishment without feat of sanction

Yeah, great. It's possible to condemn two things at once.

Theft =/= free speech. There are reasons why these riots occurred but that doesn't mean you can dismiss the damage that has been done to some communities by them.

 

Nonetheless, some of these sentences are ridiculous. Four years in prison for a Facebook event? 18 months for a student nicking a bottle of water?

 

 

I can actually understand giving long sentences for organisation of it via Facebook, even if the two guys probably are being made an example of.

 

The stealing a bottle of water thing though, how on earth did they arrive at 18 months?!!!

It was six months not 18 unless there's another case I don't know about. That's still ridiculously excessive. The fact that it was a first offence just adds to how ludicrous the sentence is.

 

The four years for the Facebook Two also seems far too severe. It's three months more than the average sentence handed out last year to people who killed someone as a result of drink driving. So apparently making a prat of yourself on Facebook is a worse offence than getting pissed and killing someone. By contrast, someone in Gloucestershire also posted something on Facebook about smashing up a Spar but persuaded the police that it was a (bad) joke and wasn't even charged.

 

There are bound to be a lot of appeals against sentences which will clog up the system even more than it is already.

 

It also seems that far too many people are being denied bail. Some of the people being remanded in custody may well get non-custodial sentences. Others will be released as soon as they are convicted because they will have served their sentence (and more) while on remand. Some, of course, may even be acquitted.

Oh yes, sorry, I got mixed up with another case that really angered me when I heard about it - a mother with two kids, one of them 2 years old, has been sent down for 18 months for being in possession of stolen goods - she got pressured into letting someone leave them at her house. I just don't see what jailing really contributes to society in this case? She isn't a threat to the public at all and her children are going to bear the social costs of this, it's just completely wrong-headed. Community service should be the option here, not jail.

One thing I'd like to point out, someone got 5 months for stealing a pair of shorts yet you have MPs who stole thousands of pounds in 'expenses' that got off with nothing.

 

Basically these are excessive sentences from an out of touch government who don't have the slightest idea what the REAL problem is that started all of this. All these 'tough sentences' won't do anything but make everything a whole lot worse. Things like the people who did all the facebook stuff should have got community service AT THE MOST but I would have just given them a warning. The mum who was in possession of stolen goods should have got community service at the most, considering this government's obsession with 'the deficit!11!1!!!1' things like the social costs for her children are example of how tthey're doing their very best to increase it it seems. :s

One thing I'd like to point out, someone got 5 months for stealing a pair of shorts yet you have MPs who stole thousands of pounds in 'expenses' that got off with nothing.

 

Basically these are excessive sentences from an out of touch government who don't have the slightest idea what the REAL problem is that started all of this. All these 'tough sentences' won't do anything but make everything a whole lot worse. Things like the people who did all the facebook stuff should have got community service AT THE MOST but I would have just given them a warning. The mum who was in possession of stolen goods should have got community service at the most, considering this government's obsession with 'the deficit!11!1!!!1' things like the social costs for her children are example of how tthey're doing their very best to increase it it seems. :s

 

From some of my local/regional newspapers - I've been absolutely gob-smacked by some of the sentences. It seems one can happily rape, pillage, mug, even murder people - and get away with lighter sentences.

 

I honestly feel that the best sentence in all of this is for the perpetrators to 'put right' or help to put right the damage they've done.

 

Kath

Most of the MPs caught up in the expenses scandal were not actually breaking the law. They were certainly going against the spirit of the rules but they were still acting within the law of the land. A few MPs and ex-MPs plus a couple peers have gone to jail because they did break the law.

 

Similarly, bankers can be said to have looted billions from the UK economy and ended up being given huge bonuses. Even the ones who lost their jobs got massive pay-offs. Again, however immoral you may think that is, they weren't breaking the law.

 

A more relevant comparison might be Cameron, Boris Johnson and their Bullingdon Club pals. They got away with acts of vandalism such as trashing restaurants because Daddy was able to pay to repair the damage.

A more relevant comparison might be Cameron, Boris Johnson and their Bullingdon Club pals. They got away with acts of vandalism such as trashing restaurants because Daddy was able to pay to repair the damage.

 

There was a fabulous piece in the Independent (20p edition) about this a few days ago.

 

I still believe the sentences handed down so far are excessive (and a bit pointless if I'm honest). I don't care what anyone says - there are a hell of a lot of underlying reasons behind the activities that took place - its just that this is a festering wound that has been going on for around 30 years.

 

I don't care what anyone says - Thatcher is at the very root of it all.

 

Kath

That woman did a lot to change the general mindset of the population. She promoted selfishness as a virtue. She encouraged an attitude of "grab what you can and don't worry about the impact on anyone else." So, in that respect, she does have to take a lot of the blame.

That woman did a lot to change the general mindset of the population. She promoted selfishness as a virtue. She encouraged an attitude of "grab what you can and don't worry about the impact on anyone else." So, in that respect, she does have to take a lot of the blame.

 

One of the biggest crimes (as far as I'm concerned) is the privatisation of institutions that should never have been privatised. Basic necessities such as heating and travel. I really can't understand how other countries have regulatory bodies to oversee price rises on gas and electricity ... and we don't.

 

You know what - the earth is going to hell in a handbasket and no-one cares! As long as we have Eastenders, Corrie and the X-Factor to keep us going - we don't give a shit! Maybe we all deserve what we get!

 

I envy the French! When they don't like something - they get together - organised - and do something about it. We the British? We just take it and whinge!

 

Kath

 

In Marx's day - Religion was the Opium of the People. Today - Reality TV is the Opium of the People!

Edited August 18, 201113 yr by Sheila Blige

Most of the MPs caught up in the expenses scandal were not actually breaking the law. They were certainly going against the spirit of the rules but they were still acting within the law of the land. A few MPs and ex-MPs plus a couple peers have gone to jail because they did break the law.

 

Similarly, bankers can be said to have looted billions from the UK economy and ended up being given huge bonuses. Even the ones who lost their jobs got massive pay-offs. Again, however immoral you may think that is, they weren't breaking the law.

 

A more relevant comparison might be Cameron, Boris Johnson and their Bullingdon Club pals. They got away with acts of vandalism such as trashing restaurants because Daddy was able to pay to repair the damage.

 

The Lib Dem Councillor who got away with a jail term after admitting making fraudulent claims on Incapacity Benefit was DEFINITELY breaking the law, and yet he doesn't get a custodial sentence for nicking over £12k... Absolutly ridiculous..... <_< <_<

 

As for these fukkin' Bankster scum, well, they get away with it because they manipulate governments in order to benefit themselves and get the rules stacked in their favour... Do you think the J P Morgan gave Tony Blair a seat on its board of execs just because he was "good chap"..? And then you have the likes of Hank Paulson, Alan Greenspan, Warren Blankfein, Ben Bernanke and Jamie Diamond basically in cahoots with the US government to bend the rules also...

 

During the Savings and Loan scandal of the 80s over 1000 banksters were jailed, the 2008 crisis there have barely been any prosecutions... Is that coincidence...? I think not...

It's hardly surprising though, is it? "A crime is a crime is a crime" etc... While I disagree with the rioting, some of these sentences are ridiculous!

It's hardly surprising though, is it? "A crime is a crime is a crime" etc... While I disagree with the rioting, some of these sentences are ridiculous!

 

The rioting was inevitable, I've been saying that riots were going to happen for ages, the problem was was that they were messy and unfocused, and too many pikeys and chavs used the unrest as an opportunity to go thieving, but I suppose in retrospect the same thing happened during the LA riots in '92 as well... Every time you get a Tory government, you get riots and social unrest, it's inevitable. Even Nick Clegg thought so (there's a clip of Clegg on You Tube before the election basically saying that there would be riots if there was a Tory Govt..), until he sold his soul to Cameron for a few cushy jobs for him and his cronies...

 

The corruption starts at the top and works its way down, the looting began long ago with the banksters and the politicians, it was only a matter of time before the ordinary citizens got in on the act.... But Max Keiser expresses it far better than I can in his most recent Keiser Reports this week....

 

Nice to see the PM has his priorities right though.....

 

Lastminute.cam - PM heads for fourth holiday in five months

Source Mirror.co.uk

 

WHAT do you do when the economy is crumbling and the nation is still reeling from the worst riots in modern history?

 

Well, for man-in-a-suitcase David Cameron the answer seems to be to simply get away from it all… again.

 

The PM is off on his FOURTH holiday in five months.

 

This time the gadabout is heading to Cornwall for a week – just 10 days after he came back from a luxury break in Italy.

 

And just as a gentle warm-up he also found time yesterday to sip beer while watching England’s final Test match against India at the Oval in London.

 

The on-tour Tory leader began his hectic holiday schedule in April, when he went to Granada in Spain for wife Samantha’s 40th birthday.

 

Then there was a week in Ibiza in May, before jetting off to Tuscany at the beginning of this month.

 

Labour MP Chris Williamson, whose Derby constituency has been hit by the Bombardier train crisis, said: “It just shows how out of touch with reality he is. We have just had the worst riots for 30 years, the economy is in meltdown and, at a local level, we have the railway industry and Bombardier facing collapse but the PM is off on another jaunt.

 

“If he were serious about what was happening he’d remain in No 10 and deal with all the emergencies.”

 

Mr Cameron reluctantly cut short his trip to Italy, where he stayed in a £9,500-a-week villa, because of the riots which swept Britain.

 

And he seemed unperturbed at the cricket yesterday – despite the London stock market falling below the crucial 5,000 mark on the worst day of trading for three years.

 

As he left the Oval, one angry spectator shouted: “Sort the bloody riots out instead of watching the cricket!”

 

But in an interview on Test Match Special, the PM defended his decision to cheer on Kevin Pietersen and Co.

 

He said: “I hope no one will begrudge me an afternoon’s cricket, particularly when England are doing so well.

 

“I try to keep up with the cricket, it’s a good way to relax.” He claimed it was important to take time off – “otherwise you get exhausted, you get completely fried and you make terrible decisions”.

 

Others were not so laid back, as yesterday’s shares bloodbath was sparked by fears that the economy was heading for a double-dip recession.

 

Some experts blamed the Tory-led coalition’s failure to boost growth for the panic on the markets, which has seen a 13% fall in the FTSE 100 this month. And Richard Hunter, of brokers Hargreaves Lansdown, said: “There seems to have been little co-ordinated action to spur growth or deal with the increasingly difficult debt ­situation of many developed economies.”

 

The collapse on the stock market ends a week of dire economic news with the jobless total leaping by 38,000 in the past three months and retail sales flat-lining.

 

Statistics out yesterday revealed Chancellor George Osborne risks missing his target to cut the deficit.

 

Labour MP Kerry McCarthy said: “The deficit targets have already had to be revised up since the recovery was choked off.” She pointed out that the Government was expected to borrow £46billion more than previously planned, and added: “If you slam the brakes on too hard you risk jobs and the recovery.

 

“It could start a vicious circle where slower growth means fewer people in work paying taxes and more people on the dole claiming benefits.”

 

Meanwhile, Downing Street insisted Mr Cameron would still have his finger on the pulse while on his fourth break.

 

A spokesman said: “Modern technology enables the Prime Minister to remain in charge even when not in the office.”

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

If Sca-Moron honestly believes that the deep, complex issues that contributed to the riots can be sorted out by him just turning up and putting in a little "face-time" for a week or so (and, Christ, his arm had to practically be twisted before he got his arse back on the plane from sodding Tuscany) and then he can just get back to his hectic "holiday schedule", then he is very much mistaken....

“I try to keep up with the cricket, it’s a good way to relax.” He claimed it was important to take time off – “otherwise you get exhausted, you get completely fried and you make terrible decisions”.

So is he telling us that he has been "completely fried" almost all the time since he became PM? Or is there another reason for his terrible decisions?