Petition for the convicted rioters to lose benefits

[Santerme]

mockney piers Wrote:

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

> I think strafer is suggesting that there is a gulf

> between immediate operational success and long

> term political strategy success, a point I'm sure

> you're well aware of despite the show of faux

> naivety ;)

Caught in a flippant remark.

[Santerme]

StraferJack Wrote:

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

> "Depends on the mission briefing and required

> outcome."

>

> the mission briefing when the army went in to NI

> was to protect the catholic community from being

> attacked.

>

> Mission fail

Depends how long term you want to look at that situation.

[cmck83]

DJKillaQueen Wrote:

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

> But not every looter is responsible for those four

> deaths and the man who was responsible for three

> of them has been arrested and will face a murder

Only by the grace of God. The fires in Tottenham, Peckham and Croydon could have easily ended in death.

[Brendan]

Maximum sentence for arson is the same as that for murder. For good reason.

[cmck83]

I feel so sorry for the lady on Rye lane and the family above who got burnt out. The family were very lucky to get out ok apparently.

[tog_in_sox]

[grumble, grumble] ...bally urchins and layabouts... [parp] ...round all 'em scoundrels up and dump 'em on cold, wet Scottish isle...tarpaulins and planking...seeds and chickens...leave 'em to fend for themselves. When they're good and sorry we'll let 'em back through workfare and dormitory housing...they can clean it and keep it working...don't let 'em in the Army, bloody dishonour the volunteers who do us proud by their service...don't want the beggars learning any dangerous skills neither...hrmph...[shuffle]

[maxxi]

tog_in_sox Wrote:

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

> ...bally urchins and layabouts... ...round all

> 'em scoundrels up and dump 'em on cold, wet

> Scottish isle...tarpaulins and planking...seeds

> and chickens...leave 'em to fend for themselves.

> When they're good and sorry we'll let 'em back

> through workfare and dormitory housing...they can

> clean it and keep it working...don't let 'em in

> the Army, bloody dishonour the volunteers who do

> us proud by their service...don't want the beggars

> learning any dangerous skills neither...hrmph...

I think you've got it! Looter Castaway on Channel 4. Every week there would be a run-off in the form of an updated Supermarket Sweep where those who only manage to get big bags of rice or cuddly toys would be eliminated and sent home in ignominy, the winner to get a 6 figure deal guesting on the One Show.

[tog_in_sox]

Sent home! Sent home! In the sea more like, or off to feed the polar bears!

No names, no fortune just 24/7 coverage, about as exciting as the Parliament channel but immensely more gratifying.

[Ridgley]

This will make things worse, those who are convicted but not sent to jail what do you think they going to do? continue to steal if there benefit is stopped.

[Jeremy]

richardbach Wrote:

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

> look at singpore they dont get roits and evryone obeys the law

A clinical city-state governed by an authoritarian dictatorship. I think I'll take my chances with the occasional riots...

[MissNoodlesHats]

make a rare post on here to say what a good idea it is? - straferjack

What an odd little comment? Does one have to have a high post count to be allowed a voice and opinion on a community forum. I remember the first brick I threw during the poll tax riots , it seemed to have the same force as the lady with dreadlocks and a nose ring who was handing out CS canisters.

Anyway why do people fall for this propaganda, we post stuff like this on the arsse website, so I suppose our opposite numbers do the same.

[StraferJack]

ah, selective quotation

"But people who not only sign this petition but pass it around and make a rare post on here to say what a good idea it is? I?m filing straight in the green-ink bin"

is what I said, which isn't quite the same thing

But as a general rule? If i was making a first post in any forum I probably would ease my way in so people know I'm not a nutter. Everyone has a voice, but not all deserve the same respect surely? Each voice is only as good as the argument it puts forward

[MissNoodlesHats]

Yes of course?

[Chick]

These aren't my words.

Dear Mr & Mrs Cameron,

Why did you never take the time to teach your child basic morality?

As a young man, he was in a gang that regularly smashed up private property. We know that you were absent parents who left your child to be brought up by a school rather than taking responsibility for his behaviour yourselves. The fact that he became a delinquent with no sense of respect for the property of others can only reflect that fact that you are terrible, lazy human beings who failed even in teaching your children the difference between right and wrong. I can only assume that his contempt for the small business owners of Oxford is indicative of his wider values.

Even worse, your neglect led him to fall in with a bad crowd. He became best friends with a young man who set fire to buildings for fun. And others:

There?s Michael Gove, whose wet-lipped rage was palpable on Newsnight last night. This is the Michael Gove who confused one of his houses with another of his houses in order to avail himself of ?7,000 of the taxpayers? money to which he was not entitled (or ?13,000, depending on which house you think was which).

Or Hazel Blears, who was interviewed in full bristling peahen mode for almost all of last night. She once forgot which house she lived in, and benefited to the tune of ?18,000. At the time she said it would take her reputation years to recover. Unfortunately not.

But, of course, this is different. This is just understandable confusion over the rules of how many houses you are meant to have as an MP. This doesn?t show the naked greed of people stealing plasma tellies.

Unless you?re Gerald Kaufman, who broke parliamentary rules to get ?8,000 worth of 40-inch, flat screen, Bang and Olufsen TV out of the taxpayer.

Or Ed Vaizey, who got ?2,000 in antique furniture ?delivered to the wrong address?. Which is fortunate, because had that been the address they were intended for, that would have been fraud.

Or Jeremy Hunt, who broke the rules to the tune of almost ?20,000 on one property and ?2,000 on another. But it?s all right, because he agreed to pay half of the money back. Not the full amount, it would be absurd to expect him to pay back the entire sum that he took and to which he was not entitled. No, we?ll settle for half. And, as in any other field, what might have been considered embezzlement of ?22,000 is overlooked. We know, after all, that David Cameron likes to give people second chances.

Fortunately, we have the Met Police to look after us. We?ll ignore the fact that two of its senior officers have had to resign in the last six weeks amid suspicions of widespread corruption within the force.

We?ll ignore Andy Hayman, who went for champagne dinners with those he was meant to be investigating, and then joined the company on leaving the Met.

Of course, Mr and Mrs Cameron, your son is right. There are parts of society that are not just broken, they are sick. Riddled with disease from top to bottom.

Just let me be clear about this (It?s a good phrase, Mr and Mrs Cameron, and one I looted from every sentence your son utters, just as he looted it from Tony Blair), I am not justifying or minimising in any way what has been done by the looters over the last few nights. What I am doing, however, is expressing shock and dismay that your son and his friends feel themselves in any way to be guardians of morality in this country.

Can they really, as 650 people who have shown themselves to be venal pygmies, moral dwarves at every opportunity over the last 20 years, bleat at others about ?criminality?. Those who decided that when they broke the rules (the rules they themselves set) they, on the whole wouldn?t face the consequences of their actions?

Are they really surprised that this country?s culture is swamped in greed, in the acquisition of material things, in a lust for consumer goods of the most base kind? Really?

Let?s have a think back: cash-for-questions; Bernie Ecclestone; cash-for-access; Mandelson?s mortgage; the Hinduja passports; Blunkett?s alleged insider trading (and, by the way, when someone has had to resign in disgrace twice can we stop having them on television as a commentator, please?); the meetings on the yachts of oligarchs; the drafting of the Digital Economy Act with Lucian Grange; Byers?, Hewitt?s & Hoon?s desperation to prostitute themselves and their positions; the fact that Andrew Lansley (in charge of NHS reforms) has a wife who gives lobbying advice to the very companies hoping to benefit from the NHS reforms. And that list didn?t even take me very long to think of.

Our politicians are for sale and they do not care who knows it.

Oh yes, and then there?s the expenses thing. Widescale abuse of the very systems they designed, almost all of them grasping what they could while they remained MPs, to build their nest egg for the future at the public?s expense. They even now whine on Twitter about having their expenses claims for getting back to Parliament while much of the country is on fire subject to any examination. True public servants.

The last few days have revealed some truths, and some heartening truths. The fact that the #riotcleanup crews had organised themselves before David Cameron even made time for a public statement is heartening. The fact that local communities came together to keep their neighbourhoods safe when the police failed is heartening. The fact that there were peace vigils being organised (even as the police tried to dissuade people) is heartening.

There is hope for this country. But we must stop looking upwards for it. The politicians are the ones leading the charge into the gutter.

David Cameron was entirely right when he said: ?It is a complete lack of responsibility in parts of our society, people allowed to think that the world owes them something, that their rights outweigh their responsibilities, and that their actions do not have consequences.?

He was more right than he knew.

And I blame the parents.

Nathaniel Tapley.

[Chick]

Again not my words:

I am impressed that tackling the rioters is happening via the lawcourts. No need to bring in evictions/benefit removals/illegal measures. After all MPs Jim Sheridan, Lembit Opik, David Crausby, Shahid Malik, Ruth Kelly among those who looted plasma TVs on their expenses - and they're on ?64k salaries. None of them went to jail. Our existing laws should be applied to all, fairly. It doesn't happen but that's the essence of the democratic vision.

[Chick]

I am off to watch One Flew over the Cuckoos? Nest.

[katie1997]

What a shame to forget Chris Huhne - one of the richest members of the current Cabinet.

Now how many houses ('homes') has he got?, its either 7 or 9. Did he manage to lie and wriggle his way out of the speeding offences in one of his many cars?

[Fabricio the Guido]

Why should we follow the law when you can bring in special rules to deal with the dispossessed? I fear this article will be accused of moral relativism, I mean, the bank bail out has no relevance to this looting, or is there some strange connection that I am not seeing?

Pitchforks and stockades, blistering barnacles....

[Rick Channing]

Manchester and Salford councils, in partnership with affordable housing landlord Salfix, are making noises about threatening to evict council tenants identified as taking part in the rioting in Manchester.

Other local authorities up and down the country are issuing similar threats. I sincerely hope it's not an empty threat and that they follow through with them if they get a conviction on one (or more) of their tenants.

[DJKillaQueen]

They need to change the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 before they can evict anyone for having a conviction I'm afraid. They can threaten but there is no permission in law for them to do so. The same goes for benefits removal.

To change the law requires a review and any review would seek to apply the law equally....therefore prejudicing one type of conviction over another would not also be likely to get through.

[curlykaren]

Ridiculous petition, the criminal justice system already outlines which punishments are suitable for certain crimes. What about the individuals who aren't on benefit or in social housing? They just get punished once while the others get punished twice?? I won't be signing it.

[Fabricio the Guido]

@ DJKQ: could they stretch the anti social limb to include acts not connected to flats or estates or building? I imagine there has to be a nexus between the anti social behaviour and the tenancy agreement.

Overall, I think its just a silly idea. Great for the headlines, and great for the chattering classes. Remember the Dangerous Dogs Act? It got to the point they couldn't tell what dogs the Act applied to any more.

[Annette Curtain]

Fabricio the Guido Wrote:

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

> Overall, I think its just a silly idea. Great for

> the headlines, and great for the chattering

> classes. Remember the Dangerous Dogs Act? It got

> to the point they couldn't tell what dogs the Act

> applied to any more.

Yeah but no but. The dogs didn't have a tenancy agreement.

[Fabricio the Guido]

Neither is an 11 year old rioter likely to have one. The adults might. I think they could stretch certain anti social behaviour provisions but it would be wrong to do so. ooman rights and all that.

[mrcee]

What about the people not on benefits but still involved http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2025068/Revealed-middle-class-rioters-The-aspiring-musician-organic-chef-millionaires-daughter-dock-accused-looting.html?ito=feeds-newsxml