Seaford Saint Posted 19 August, 2011 Share Posted 19 August, 2011 Good sense prevails, ridiculous sentence in the first place Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gingeletiss Posted 19 August, 2011 Share Posted 19 August, 2011 See, for me, this is where you two are so wrong. Are you saying there is a difference in the crime of receiving stolen goods, between a pair of shorts and a diamond necklace. The crime is receiving stolen goods, regardless of what the goods are. This country is in the state it is, due to liberal minded buffons like that judge, imo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wade Garrett Posted 19 August, 2011 Share Posted 19 August, 2011 For the cost of sending just 2 young men to jail for 4 years for setting up a facebook group that didn't cause a riot, you could employ 4 youth workers for 4 years working with up to 200 of the most alienated young people per year (800 young people in 4 yrs) or pay for a full time youth advice service in 8 large secondary schools (benefitting around 10,000 young people) for a year or you could employ 24 young people on £15,000 for a year at a time when youth unemployment has reached over 20%. Wow, think how much money you could save by not sending serious criminals to jail. The savings in the long run of banging up the feral youth will more than outweigh the cost of keeping them in prison. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Verbal Posted 19 August, 2011 Share Posted 19 August, 2011 See, for me, this is where you two are so wrong. Are you saying there is a difference in the crime of receiving stolen goods, between a pair of shorts and a diamond necklace. The crime is receiving stolen goods, regardless of what the goods are. This country is in the state it is, due to liberal minded buffons like that judge, imo. You're in such a state of high dudgeon that you forgot to think. She wasn't found not guilty - she was given a non-custodial sentence of 75 hours' unpaid work for receiving one pair of shorts from a looter. Seems not only fair, but a burden lifted from the taxpayer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
View From The Top Posted 19 August, 2011 Share Posted 19 August, 2011 See, for me, this is where you two are so wrong. Are you saying there is a difference in the crime of receiving stolen goods, between a pair of shorts and a diamond necklace. The crime is receiving stolen goods, regardless of what the goods are. This country is in the state it is, due to liberal minded buffons like that judge, imo. F**k me, you're an idiot. Of all the people that chat sh*t you really are the one who does so without thought or IQ. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gingeletiss Posted 19 August, 2011 Share Posted 19 August, 2011 You're in such a state of high dudgeon that you forgot to think. She wasn't found not guilty - she was given a non-custodial sentence of 75 hours' unpaid work for receiving one pair of shorts from a looter. Seems not only fair, but a burden lifted from the taxpayer. In your haste to put one over on me, did you read my post at all? The relevent bit again... Are you saying there is a difference in the crime of receiving stolen goods, between a pair of shorts and a diamond necklace. The crime is receiving stolen goods, regardless of what the goods are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Verbal Posted 19 August, 2011 Share Posted 19 August, 2011 In your haste to put one over on me, did you read my post at all? The relevent bit again... Are you saying there is a difference in the crime of receiving stolen goods, between a pair of shorts and a diamond necklace. The crime is receiving stolen goods, regardless of what the goods are. I did, and thought it too bonkers to mention in case it caused embarrassment to you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gingeletiss Posted 19 August, 2011 Share Posted 19 August, 2011 I did, and thought it too bonkers to mention in case it caused embarrassment to you. So, you don't have an answer then! Oh, for your information, I feel no embarrassment about this subject, as it's only a very small minority in this country, that holds this wishy washy viewpoint, Alas, some of those few in parliment, and quite a few in the judicial system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonnyboy Posted 19 August, 2011 Share Posted 19 August, 2011 People of Saintweb - I urge you not to riot in Southampton tonight outside MacDonalds at 10pm. How come I havent had my front door bashed in yet? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonnyboy Posted 19 August, 2011 Share Posted 19 August, 2011 Both, now I'm in my dotage!. In my youth it was knowing right from wrong, but in some cases, pushing those boundrys. I have the conscience, and even now, the thought of prison terrifies me, but my son, nah, he done time standing on his head. Ive always said, the responsibility lies with the parent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Verbal Posted 19 August, 2011 Share Posted 19 August, 2011 So, you don't have an answer then! Oh, for your information, I feel no embarrassment about this subject, as it's only a very small minority in this country, that holds this wishy washy viewpoint, Alas, some of those few in parliment, and quite a few in the judicial system. Are you serious? Of course the value of what's been received matters in sentencing! How strange. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dune Posted 19 August, 2011 Author Share Posted 19 August, 2011 And so it begins... The first successful appeal against an admittedly ridiculous sentence. http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/aug/19/riots-mother-looted-shorts-freed What a ridiculous sentence in the first place. There is going to a lot of appeals won over the coming weeks and months all at the expense of the taxpayer because magistrates and judges have been idiots. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aintforever Posted 19 August, 2011 Share Posted 19 August, 2011 You get the impression the judges have been handing out severe punishments because they've been in a sh!t mood because of all the extra hours they've had to put in. Hopefully a few more will be let out. We all want criminals punished but having an unfair justice system just creates more problems than it solves IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dune Posted 19 August, 2011 Author Share Posted 19 August, 2011 16 months for stealing doughnuts.... It's lucky we still don't ship convicts to Australia. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aintforever Posted 19 August, 2011 Share Posted 19 August, 2011 4 years inside for posting on facebook! You can bet your life the judge who sentenced them doesn't have the faintest clue about what social network sites are about. I expect it was just be some old c*nt who read somewhere that the riots were arranged online and thought those kids were behind the whole thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 19 August, 2011 Share Posted 19 August, 2011 seems a bit OTT rather just put them in a chain-gang and get them cleaning the streets Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonnyboy Posted 19 August, 2011 Share Posted 19 August, 2011 4 years inside for posting on facebook! You can bet your life the judge who sentenced them doesn't have the faintest clue about what social network sites are about. I expect it was just be some old c*nt who read somewhere that the riots were arranged online and thought those kids were behind the whole thing. exactly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 19 August, 2011 Share Posted 19 August, 2011 Yes, but commuting at all by train is now exclusively the privilege of the quite wealthy. If you're low-paid and in London you have to be in London. Which means you end up, often, at the bottom of the housing pile - and that, in london, is something you definitely want to avoid. The sink estates around the inner perimeter of London are full of people in this situation. So maybe if the wealthy commuters like you had campaigned for fares not to be so high, the offspring of those on these estates might have had happier lives in the burbs. Therefore, you are responsible for the looters. Correct n'est pas? I think you'll find the blame lies squarely with the baby Jesus. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gaz Posted 5 September, 2011 Share Posted 5 September, 2011 Just found this online, apologies if its been posted before. http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/sep/05/riot-court-cases-data Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now