Justice

[Herr Tubthumper]

Woolwich Weatherspoons.... the bastards felt fit to petrol burn that.

Not that I condone arson but........

 

[Sussex Nomad]

Sentencing is led by the Sentencing Guidelines Council and provides for an approach whereby there is a starting point and then aggravating and mitigating factors are considered; in the case of the rioters/looters then things like premeditation and group action would be aggravating factors but there's no exhaustive list as long as the magistrates' reasons are sound.

I built their website two years ago! Think it's part of the Justice website now though... perhaps I should have read it whilst developing it!

 

[HovaGirl]

I still think Gwylan's points stands. Ultimately, your take on zero tolerance is that you suggest we should come down hard on yobs who trash places with heavy sentences, yet not on crimes that are deemed "less unacceptable" by the rest of society, such as traffic offences and expense fiddling.

Personally, I'd just like tough sentences for any crime that was undertaken with a mob mentality and as for crime in general, perhaps a "3 strikes and you're out" policy. There are too many repeat offenders who think they can do what they like because prior sentences have been too leniant.

You did not read (or understand?) what I wrote here and elsewhere. At the moment, we are discussing the rioters and whether Zero Tolerance should be used in their case. We are not discussing "posh" crime. However, Zero Tolerance means mandatory sentences for all crime, no mitigating circumstances. That means, whoever is caught littering a pavement, will always get the same sentence, whoever they are. It also means, that whoever goes 10mph over the speed limit, will get the same sentence, whoever they are. And it means that those who commit fraud by fiddling their expenses will get the same sentence, whoever they are, although in this case, defrauding your office of a free lunch is a bit different to defrauding your employer of millions, so sentences would be apportionate.

 

[Gwylan]

You did not read (or understand?) what I wrote here and elsewhere. At the moment, we are discussing the rioters and whether Zero Tolerance should be used in their case. We are not discussing "posh" crime. However, Zero Tolerance means mandatory sentences for all crime, no mitigating circumstances. That means, whoever is caught littering a pavement, will always get the same sentence, whoever they are. It also means, that whoever goes 10mph over the speed limit, will get the same sentence, whoever they are. And it means that those who commit fraud by fiddling their expenses will get the same sentence, whoever they are, although in this case, defrauding your office of a free lunch is a bit different to defrauding your employer of millions, so sentences would be apportionate.

You're missing the point.

My original post referred to Mo Gosfield's in which he said that to deter offenders from committing major crimes, lawmakers should get tough on minor crimes. My point was that it's all very well saying that but as authorities start getting tough on lawbreakers there are people who say that "When I said 'let's get tough on lawbreakers' I meant people like x, y, z not people like me committing crimes a, b, c". Within half-an-hour of my posting that you popped up "Let's get tough on the yobs but not other offences"

Zero tolerance, as I understand it, is not saying that the middle class looter should get treated the same as an underclass looter but that the police get tough on ALL crimes no matter how minor. So, the litterer, the cyclist riding through red lights, the graffiti artist, the shoplifter get tough sentences. I'm not sure I entirely agree with this but I accept that it's a legitimate viewpoint. But if you start suggesting that we get tough on some minor crimes but not others, then the whole ethos of the approach is destroyed.

To quote another example, you often hear parents say that schools should instil more discipline on their pupils - unti theirs is the one in trouble - and then the same parents are up to school screaming blue murder about the way their kids are victimised.

 

[Sussex Nomad]

I built their website two years ago! Think it's part of the Justice website now though... perhaps I should have read it whilst developing it!

Cool it's still there.

 

[HovaGirl]

You're missing the point.

My original post referred to Mo Gosfield's in which he said that to deter offenders from committing major crimes, lawmakers should get tough on minor crimes. My point was that it's all very well saying that but as authorities start getting tough on lawbreakers there are people who say that "When I said 'let's get tough on lawbreakers' I meant people like x, y, z not people like me committing crimes a, b, c". Within half-an-hour of my posting that you popped up "Let's get tough on the yobs but not other offences"

I did not. (Sorry, this quote didn't work.)

 

[HovaGirl]

You're missing the point.

My original post referred to Mo Gosfield's in which he said that to deter offenders from committing major crimes, lawmakers should get tough on minor crimes. My point was that it's all very well saying that but as authorities start getting tough on lawbreakers there are people who say that "When I said 'let's get tough on lawbreakers' I meant people like x, y, z not people like me committing crimes a, b, c". Within half-an-hour of my posting that you popped up "Let's get tough on the yobs but not other offences"

Zero tolerance, as I understand it, is not saying that the middle class looter should get treated the same as an underclass looter but that the police get tough on ALL crimes no matter how minor. So, the litterer, the cyclist riding through red lights, the graffiti artist, the shoplifter get tough sentences. I'm not sure I entirely agree with this but I accept that it's a legitimate viewpoint. But if you start suggesting that we get tough on some minor crimes but not others, then the whole ethos of the approach is destroyed.

To quote another example, you often hear parents say that schools should instil more discipline on their pupils - unti theirs is the one in trouble - and then the same parents are up to school screaming blue murder about the way their kids are victimised.

I did not say the things you claim I said. I did not say "Let's get tough on the yobs but not other offences". Please find the post where I said that. I've said we are discussing the looters/rioters, not MPs, that isn't to say, suggest or imply that MPs should not be dealt with. Once you appreciate what I actually have been saying and not what you think I've been saying, you'll find we seem to be in agreement.

Victimisation. Yes, everyone's a victim, these days. Or, at least, not those who want to take responsibility for their own or their children's actions.

 

[Gwylan]

I did not say the things you claim I said..

"Zero Tolerance isn't about MP's expenses or driving too fast... Zero tolerance is about finding and dealing with the yobs who trash such places, or who plaster everywhere in graffitti, or who pee or swear in public or who shoplift."

My point is that you can't have one without the other. If you're going to get tough on ALL lawbreaking then you get tough on all lawbreaking, you don't pick and choose, otherwise there's little point in doing it.

 

[HovaGirl]

"Zero Tolerance isn't about MP's expenses or driving too fast... Zero tolerance is about finding and dealing with the yobs who trash such places, or who plaster everywhere in graffitti, or who pee or swear in public or who shoplift."

My point is that you can't have one without the other. If you're going to get tough on ALL lawbreaking then you get tough on all lawbreaking, you don't pick and choose, otherwise there's little point in doing it.

That much is obvious and nothing I've said has suggested otherwise. The simple point I was originally trying to make, which you have drawn out into a discussion on MP's expenses, is that under Zero Tolerance, even the tiniest, littlest most insignificant crime should be punished, even if it's by a first offender aged 7. I don't want to repeat myself, again.

 

[folkestonesgull]

zero tollerance policies have worked just so well in the USA of course...

oh...

 

[BadFish]

"Zero Tolerance isn't about MP's expenses or driving too fast... Zero tolerance is about finding and dealing with the yobs who trash such places, or who plaster everywhere in graffiti, or who pee or swear in public or who shoplift."

My point is that you can't have one without the other. If you're going to get tough on ALL lawbreaking then you get tough on all lawbreaking, you don't pick and choose, otherwise there's little point in doing it.

I think that is was causes a lot of anger. That actually those people who make the laws are picking and choosing what they get tough on and as the article you posted earlier suggests, they get tough on others and not them selves. Kids are getting stopped and searched daily, arrested and ASBOed for what they perceive to be 'nothing'. where as in big business and government they organise their own cosy investigations and take no responsibility for their actions. How high up will the punishment go for the phone tapping scandal? We i bet my bottom dollar that a murdoch does not end up in prison. Same with the expenses scandal and god knows what else.

 

[Sloe Joe]

Burning down a Wetherspoons deserves at least a LIFE SENTENCE

 

[Foster House]

It is possible to condemn those people who have destroyed livelihoods and risked lives, demand they be punished to the full extent of the law, and try to understand what led them to believe these actions were acceptable.

It is also possible to believe that poverty, lack of opportunities and the exclusion of certain groups from society are underlying causes to these disturbances - among many others - and to say that they are entirely responsible for their own actions.

We are left with a choice: either we arrest and prosecute everyone involved and carry on as normal until the next riot, or we arrest and prosecute everyone involved and try to address the causes which led to them in the first place.

 

[BadFish]

Burning down a Wetherspoons deserves at least a LIFE SENTENCE

Burning down a weatherspoons deserves a f***ing knighthood. Maybe they will build a proper pub in it's place.

 

[Sloe Joe]

No problem, we smiply arrst EVERY ONE of them who is spotted in a revolt, charge then, imprison them and they will be taught not to repeat. To adopt a why did they do it attitude will only encourage repeat problems.
You've missed the point of harsh discilne I'm afraid. That's simple life to a point.
Go wring your hands.

 

[BadFish]

It is possible to condemn those people who have destroyed livelihoods and risked lives, demand they be punished to the full extent of the law, and try to understand what led them to believe these actions were acceptable.

It is also possible to believe that poverty, lack of opportunities and the exclusion of certain groups from society are underlying causes to these disturbances - among many others - and to say that they are entirely responsible for their own actions.

We are left with a choice: either we arrest and prosecute everyone involved and carry on as normal until the next riot, or we arrest and prosecute everyone involved and try to address the causes which led to them in the first place.

This, this and this.

 

[BadFish]

No problem, we smiply arrst EVERY ONE of them who is spotted in a revolt, charge then, imprison them and they will be taught not to repeat. To adopt a why did they do it attitude will only encourage repeat problems.
You've missed the point of harsh discilne I'm afraid. That's simple life to a point.
Go wring your hands.

How? you have to explain this one to me.

 

[The Rivet]

Phew! Don't we all have similar yet ultimately conflicting ideas and viewpoints! The first question seems to be how hard on these miscreants should we be in a pleaded guilty or convicted scenario? Well, most of us seem to favour harsh sentences, me included. I must ask though how many of us think past that thought? For example, what happens to these people AFTER we have incarcerated them? Are we to go back to the birch and the aimless turnscrew? Are we to just focus on the fact we want the loss of liberty as punishment be over taken by physical compulsion and physical threat on top of that loss of liberty? An indication on how we would be if we went down that path. Believe it or not over 10 million people in this country have some form of criminal record. 10 Million. Thats a lot of jobs and taxes if they were not able, upon release. to regain employment. The rehabilitation of offenders act 1974 was introduced to enable those trying to reconcile themselves back into normal society the protection they needed to do so. Since then we have the introduction of the CRB check which is all encompassing and which is being totally abused by employers and in my opinion rides rough shod over the actual legislation of 1974. The result? 10 million scared of applying for jobs, denied jobs and declared personna non gratia as far as the 'majority' are concerned. Social result? 10 million resentful and dependent benefit claimants that have absolututely NO chance of meaningfull employment or future.

 

[HovaGirl]

I think that is was causes a lot of anger. That actually those people who make the laws are picking and choosing what they get tough on and as the article you posted earlier suggests, they get tough on others and not them selves. Kids are getting stopped and searched daily, arrested and ASBOed for what they perceive to be 'nothing'. where as in big business and government they organise their own cosy investigations and take no responsibility for their actions. How high up will the punishment go for the phone tapping scandal? We i bet my bottom dollar that a murdoch does not end up in prison. Same with the expenses scandal and god knows what else.

I hate to say it, but Greece has one of the most corrupt societies I have come across. I live here, so I have to deal with it. It's endemic, so if you think Britain is corrupt, believe me, in the main, she ain't. The man on the street thinks, well, if that lot in Parliament carry on the way they do, then I'm not going to stop what I do. If you want a driving licence, see my cousin's brother-in-law's son, Stavros. He'll sort you out. Never driven a car in your life before? Doesn't matter. Stavros will sort it. You go to a lovely (or naff) coffee bar. Palm trees, setting sun, warm breeze round your shoulders. You order two capuccinos. You even get a receipt. At pay-up time, Christos takes your money, and your receipt, and he gives that same receipt to the next couple who order two capuccinos. Four capuccinos sold, and he only has to declare two to the tax man. Or you have to go to hospital for an operation. Have to say Greek doctors are probably the best I've come across. If they're private at 150 euros an hour. Otherwise, you stay overnight for a few days. Best if the family comes to visit: to wash you; to feed you; to make sure you get your meds. But if you can't come personally, you just pay a few hundred euros, and the nurse will look after you as if you were her own flesh and blood.

A friend of mine was on a bus in Cyprus, going about his daily business. The bus stopped and numerous police turned up. My friend, being an innocent and gullible Brit, was yanked off to the police station. Being an innocent, he didn't really understand what they meant when they placed a brown paper bag in front of him. He placed his watch and wallet in it, imagining he was about to be banged up (for no reason he could think of). They emptied the contents on the desk, and shook the bag at him. He thought for a moment. And realised. So he gave them a few hundred Euros. Case closed. The scam, in case you haven't realised it yet, was that the bus driver and the local police were in league. Innocent Brit doesn't have a chance. He just has to pay up.

There are politicians who have tried to change this. One, was a vociferous anti-corruption politician, and he declared he was going to curb corruption, starting right at the top. He was shot dead, of course. This rather scared off any other politicians from trying the same thing.

For this reason, I really don't have time for people who believe corruption is endemic in British society. It really isn't.

 

[BadFish]

I hate to say it, but Greece has one of the most corrupt societies I have come across. I live here, so I have to deal with it. It's endemic, so if you think Britain is corrupt, believe me, in the main, she ain't. The man on the street thinks, well, if that lot in Parliament carry on the way they do, then I'm not going to stop what I do. If you want a driving licence, see my cousin's brother-in-law's son, Stavros. He'll sort you out. Never driven a car in your life before? Doesn't matter. Stavros will sort it. You go to a lovely (or naff) coffee bar. Palm trees, setting sun, warm breeze round your shoulders. You order two capuccinos. You even get a receipt. At pay-up time, Christos takes your money, and your receipt, and he gives that same receipt to the next couple who order two capuccinos. Four capuccinos sold, and he only has to declare two to the tax man. Or you have to go to hospital for an operation. Have to say Greek doctors are probably the best I've come across. If they're private at 150 euros an hour. Otherwise, you stay overnight for a few days. Best if the family comes to visit: to wash you; to feed you; to make sure you get your meds. But if you can't come personally, you just pay a few hundred euros, and the nurse will look after you as if you were her own flesh and blood.

A friend of mine was on a bus in Cyprus, going about his daily business. The bus stopped and numerous police turned up. My friend, being an innocent and gullible Brit, was yanked off to the police station. Being an innocent, he didn't really understand what they meant when they placed a brown paper bag in front of him. He placed his watch and wallet in it, imagining he was about to be banged up (for no reason he could think of). They emptied the contents on the desk, and shook the bag at him. He thought for a moment. And realised. So he gave them a few hundred Euros. Case closed. The scam, in case you haven't realised it yet, was that the bus driver and the local police were in league. Innocent Brit doesn't have a chance. He just has to pay up.

There are politicians who have tried to change this. One, was a vociferous anti-corruption politician, and he declared he was going to curb corruption, starting right at the top. He was shot dead, of course. This rather scared anyone who would try the same thing.

For this reason, I really don't have time for people who believe corruption is endemic in British society. It really isn't.


A few years ago, one politician decided

your logic here is that because Greece is more corrupt , then Britain isn't corrupt at all? Sorry I can't follow that logic.