Legal response to looters

[intexasatthe moment]

The national figures from the Ministry of Justice show that about 66% of those who have appeared in court have been remanded into custody to wait for another court hearing.

The MoJ says this compares with an average remand figure of 10% for similar offences in 2010.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14504294

Just shocked by this knee jerk reaction - the ring leaders will get away . Those on the periphery will be punished for political effect ,to make an example .

The effect on those involved in the looting will be to hardern the battle lines .

[Frankito]

So, what do you suggezt as a workable alternative?

[richardbach]

i uuolde go long on prison biulding comapny shares lol

[intexasatthe moment]

I really don't know Frankito - tag them ,release them on bail ,deal with them calmly and with due respect to law /previous judgements handed down ?

[Frankito]

So I guess the first step to knowing what you want is knowing what you don't want.

It's a toughie but rightnow, I am more of the opinion that the law has to come down harsh on any culprits that are found and also to make examples of them..

[DJKillaQueen]

It's all madness. Obviously those charged with violence should be treated in line with all violent offenders but we have a situation where people charged with non violent petty crimes are being treated in line with violent offenders. It makes a mockery of the judicial system and just reinforces the notion that the establishment can get away with whatever they like (like MPs and bribe taking Police Officers), whilst ordinary people can't. It is going to do nothing to improve already flawed attitudes towards the Police and the State of those people charged.

[edhistory]

This is not a knee-jerk response.

The British ruling class has a long history of the State (Crown) taking exemplary action against the Citizen (Subject).

John K

[intexasatthe moment]

So I guess the first step to knowing what you want is knowing what you don't want.

Not sure I understand this or its relevance to my shock at the way courts are curently dealing with people .

Take your point edhistory and thank you DJKillaqueen for expressing my thoughts more eloquently than I had managed to .

[DJKillaQueen]

Yw texas and you might find this article interesting reading too.

The moral decay of our society is as bad at the top as the bottom.

[richardbach]

not wihsning to drail thred but civel disobeniance is v high on list of bad things in teh laws them politisans an royls always benen scared of a revolution like taht winston blok bakc in teh day wanted to snend in teh gunbaots to deal with srtikrs and he bcame a national hero and a sir as well

[DJKillaQueen]

That's true, whether it be a government quashing a civil uprising or the Catholic Church burning spinsters as witches. And it also explains the establishment backlash and the willingness of Judges to play along. But where is the redress for ordinary people when the establishment can't live by what it preaches? Then civil uprising becomes the only option.

[richardbach]

"'Another 20-year-old man from Manchester received a six-month prison sentence after admitting carrying bags with the intention of gathering training shoes left in the street following the riots. '

lest hope teh plice dont go down lodrship lane as they wuold have lots of arest to make of al tho e people who have ed snub macrame hessian bags on there person lol

[DJKillaQueen]

Someone I know had their eco friendly bag (empty) stolen in Sainsburry's last week so you never know.

I'm suprised the man admitted the bags were for that purpose, and the sentence is just another example of the ludicrous headline grabbing reaction by the government and I have to say the Judiciary. Compare that six month sentence to this. Three young women, went to another womans house with the intent to beat her up, which they did, committing the offence of ABH. They all received suspended snetences of 4, 3 and 2 months respectfully.

[DaveR]

Crikey, lots of expert opinion here.

I would make a couple of observations. A comparison with 2010 will have been with similar charges, but hardly likely to be similar offences. I don't recall much in the way of mass rioting & looting in 2010, and it's hardly surprising that the courts are treating this context as a pretty serious aggravating feature. A bit of light shoplifting is not really on a par with stepping through the broken front window of Tescos and helping yourself to whatever you want, while buildings around you burn.

What has been happening is that the magistrates have been committing people for sentence - a sign that a bit of proper bird is coming - and not giving people bail because they fear they won't turn up to get it. Committals for sentence are very often in custody, for precisely that reason. Another reason for refusing bail is the likelihood of committing further offences. When the defendant in front of you got a BBM saying 'cum and loot', and duly went, that might be a bit of a worry.

"the sentence is just another example of the ludicrous headline grabbing reaction by the government and I have to say the Judiciary"

how is the government responsible for a particular sentence imposed by a particular judge? I know this will offend a few swivel-eyed conspiracy theorists, but the idea that judges in criminal courts are government stooges is fantasy.

[Frankito]

Texas, my comment was in response to your previous one where we seemed to agree on the fact that neither of us have the answer i.e. Know what we want. However we all know what we don't want and that is essentially that the perpetrators are delivered a punishment that fits the crime.

And hey, you don't gave to be as eloquent as the lovely DJKQ to have an opinion; I ain't either but it certainly doesn't stop me from banging on..

[Applespider]

DJKillaQueen Wrote:

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

> It's all madness. Obviously those charged with

> violence should be treated in line with all

> violent offenders but we have a situation where

> people charged with non violent petty crimes are

> being treated in line with violent offenders.

Except that how the judiciary are seeing it is that even those who 'just' looted opportunistically are responsible 'art and part' for the bigger situation.

[DJKillaQueen]

That's correct applespider. They are giving custodial sentences to people who were NOT looting or rioting - weren't even there. The mother that received stolen trainers is an example of this. And the Judiciary do take note of guidance on sentencing, so if you have a Government line that says 'we will get you and there will be no leniancy', then some Judges will interpret that to mean maximun sentencing and no bail.

There's nothing wrong with that as long as it's applied accross the board. It is isn't though. There are thousands of precedents of crimes on a par with the range of charges applied, to those connected in some way to recent events, where the sentencing isn't even close to being maximum. And to me that says only one thing. The law is being used to make a targetted example of anyone connected to the rioting and/ or looting.

Where was the correlating treatment for MP's that 'looted' the expenses loophole, or the Police officers that took money from the press? You can not have a judicial system that goes soft on the moral decay at the top of society, and then hits those at the other end with everything it has, and expect to have a better society for it.

[Applespider]

Completely agree on there should be the same rules for top/bottom of society with laws being applied equally. But sadly as we've seen with the banking fallout too, Orwell was right; some are more equal than others.

[Huguenot]

There seems to be a lot of peeps on here convicting the government and the judiciary in absentia based on hearsay and prejudice. I don't think that would be regarded as justice.

MPs did not 'loot' the expenses. They certainly acted immorally, but mostly within the law, and for the most part subject to the guidance of the expenses office. Those that broke the law suffered accordingly.

I'm not sure about the police and press payments issue - but I understood the investigation is still underway? We can make no claims to justice until the dust has settled.

Regarding banks very few committed illegal activities, in the main they operated within a financial system that lacked sufficient regulation. This doesn't mean there was a crime.

[LadyDeliah]

Er, because they are the ones who make the laws in the first place!

[Frankito]

Why do bankers get it in the neck every time something goes wrong.. Yawn..

Fessing up time: I work for an American bank in The City and do a very honest job and manage a bunch of honest people who work extremely hard. Things are changing and there is much more risk and control than ever before which is a good thing.

There are bad apples everywhere but we are not all like that.

A very small minority of 'bankers' earn vast somes of money, usually the ones who also bring in billions of $s too. I don't hear criticism for footballers who earn similar amounts for kicking a ball about..

[LadyDeliah]

Bankers don't actually create wealth though do they?

They sell debt and move other people's money around, so the analogy with a footballer, who creates wealth for a football club, doesn't stand really.

[Frankito]

There are many financial products/ instruments out there, Debt (in it's various forms) is just one of them. Moving other people's money around is providing a service and thus not free..

I don't get your other point. 'Bankers' do create wealth and lots of it. Footballers provide entertainment I guess but worthy of millions, I think not.

It's the sadist in me that even contemplates engaging in such conversations as 'they just don't understand'.... lol :)

Happy days now leave me alone as I want to get on with that video thingy..

[LadyDeliah]

Lol, come back to me after you have finished it and give me a proper video report, young man!

[Huguenot]

'Bankers don't create wealth' is a hackneyed cliche.

You'd need to define what 'wealth' was first. If it was resources and material posessions, then in provding a service that's in demand from other people (providing a resource) then yes they do create wealth.

Over 90% of the 'wealth' in the country comes from services of one kind or another, so if you want to insist that bankers don't create wealth, then you'd need to accept that most of us don't.

Their fee for this service certainly seems disproportionate, but most people try and attract the highest fees for their labour so the bankers aren't doing anything that everyone else wouldn't do.

I'm not defending the ridiculous situation that banking activity has left us in, I'm just pointing out that this doesn't make them criminals, and doesn't make them much different from anyone else.