This was a crown court case, which is even more concerning. Crown court is used for serious offences which require a punishment of more than six months in prison, so for a case such as this to get from arrest to multi-year crown court sentence in a week is hugely concerning. A case has to first be heard in magistrates' court and handed to crown court, so it will have been in the hands of Chester Crown Court for just a day or two.
But for more minor offences attracting sentences under six months, magistrates' courts have been sitting through the night to "process" literally thousands of small-time, mainly first offender criminals.
Courts have been under great political pressure to serve swift and tough "justice" such that minor offences have attracted fairly lengthy prison sentences. Take the case of the mother of two young children who slept through the Manchester riots, but whose flatmate gave her a pair of stolen shorts from a store the morning after. She got five months in prison, for an offence which (if it even got as far as court) would normally attract a period of unpaid community work and/or a fine. [http://menmedia.co.uk/manchestereveningnews/news/s/1455638_m...]
I personally can't see how any of these people can get a fair trial when the court is sitting at 3am, it's less than a week since their arrest, and politicians are pressing hard on unpaid magistrates for disproportionate sentences in a vague attempt to give the impression that a government that's fairly weak and lacking in public support is being "tough on crime."
I feel for those who are caught up in this system right now. I am no apologist for criminals, but at the moment, people leading fairly fragile and frugal existences are having even that taken away for political point-scoring.
I wouldn't feel for those having justice dealt to them, not one bit. They not only participated in the riots - but made an effort to promote them.
As for the woman who accepted stolen goods from her flatmate - she deserved it. The right course of action would've been to advise her flatmate to turn herself in and return the goods, or actually call the police herself. She decides to go through the stolen goods, picking what she wants and wearing it.
As far as community work / fines - there's been a few articles on various newspapers by community workers and enforcers who plainly state that it has little to no impact. Dig a little deeper, and you'll find prisons in the UK happen to be quite nice; offering lot better facilities than many hostels. Plus, having spoken to a lot of officers, many state that if you don't clamp down on people when they break minor laws / rules - soon the boundaries shift and before they know it; they've become criminals.
Having witnessed first hand the devastation and destruction in Hackney - most small business owners who lost pretty much their whole lively hoods would state that the sentences being handed out aren't enough - and I whole heartedly agree. What still irks me is that nearly two-thirds of my hard earned money is being taken by the government in taxes, and is feeding these people in a prison cell; likely where they have access to a TV with Sky, a PlayStation, 3 good meals a day, clean bedsheets and clothes etc etc.
Right, because everybody knows that taking a mother away from her children for five months to punish her for accepting a pair of pants that she didn't steal is justice.
</sarcasm>
Really, I hope you have receipts for every item you've ever received from someone else.
Sure, these riots are wrong on many levels but this is totally disproportionate.
Definitely a harsh ruling against her - but considering the legal system I doubt she'll spend any time in a prison cell.
Then there's a very touchy matter of wether you really want kids being brought up by a mother who clearly turns a blind eye to rioting / looting, and indirectly even partakes in criminal activity (knowingly handling stolen goods).
We also should arrest all the people in Tunisia, Egypt and Libya who rioted in their countries this year as well. Disorder must not be tolerated! Government power above all else! Bow before your gods, peasants!
There's rioting for the sake of a rebellion, hopefully leading to a revolution. Then there's rioting for the sake of looting and causing damage, nothing more.
Of course I agree that the UK riots were not the former, but I hope you see the problem with trusting the government to decide which one is which, and giving them special powers to punish people who riot (over and above the criminal acts of destruction that can already be punished under existing laws).
Tunisian riots started with people upset because of the way the police had abused some guy. Same as the UK. EXACT SAME THING. Not different at all. Police abuse provokes rioting that leads to the justified overthrow of the government. Only the ending turned out different.
This was not a dumb pointless soccer riot. It was provoked by the government violating the rights of the people. The people pushed back. Sometimes that turns violent. Sometimes it gets completely out of control. Sometimes it gets so out of control, that in the end the old regime is cast out and a new form of government instituted.
The French Revolution was no different. A bunch of hooligans mindlessly rioting and destroying things over some minor matter they should have just let go. But in the end, the king was dead, him and his wife's heads were cut off and spat upon.
This round the government got the upper hand. The people in the UK are not happy with how things are going. The revolution is not going to be this month, but it has started this month. The nation is already dead, having abused the people too long. Hard to say how much time they have before the final revolt, but it's obvious to this impartial outside observer that revolution is coming and the momentum is strong enough that throwing dissidents and fools in prison will only hasten its inevitable fall.
Except for the charismatic, well spoken Robespierre running the Terror as a matter of centrally-planned policy, and systematically purging his political competition within the Revolution by means that would have impressed Stalin and Mao.
The nation is already dead, having abused the people too long. Hard to say how much time they have before the final revolt, but it's obvious to this impartial outside observer that revolution is coming and the momentum is strong enough that throwing dissidents and fools in prison will only hasten its inevitable fall.
This reads like a Robespierre speech praising both the inevitability and the righteousness of the Revolution. Pray that you are wrong, because that sort of revolution leave the nation a smoking ruin.
Pointing out it's well nigh inevitable at this point due to systematic abuse of and disregard for human rights isn't saying that it is righteous or that the outcome will be good. Most revolutions lead to bad outcomes not good, but most revolutions are also inevitable. The British ubersurveillance police state experiment has gone too far and there are no signs of abating. This is not the only issue, there are others. It's pretty unlikely reform will come in time. It's not a wild pronouncement to note that the revolution has begun, it's just an observation of what is going on.
The day the Rodney King verdict was announced I took part in one of hundreds of peaceful protest marches, which were interrupted by fascist police who tried to round up participants for legally exercising their right to protest. The next day I had to make a delivery in LA and saw the riots. I got out of there as soon as I realized what was going on but I saw enough to know the city was being burned to the ground by a populace outraged over injustice, not a thugs looking for free TVs. I never said "Wow this sucks, look at those undisciplined animals rioting". Instead I said, "Wow, this sucks, look at what happens if you don't value justice in a society."
The sentence of 4 years in prison of this kid for posting on Facebook some nonsense he deleted a couple hours later inviting people to join him at McDonalds for a riot meetup that never happened is not justice. Nor is throwing a mother in prison because her flatmate brought home some looted clothes and she accepted a pair of shorts. That is the reign of terror. It is not justice, it is fascism and extremism at its worst. The people calling for violent and extreme punishment of the protestors are insane and their actions bring the destruction of their failed nation that much closer.
Harsh sentences like these will only serve to convince a large segment of the population that the system is unjust (and perhaps even that the riots were therefore a "good thing" (fight the system, etc, etc)).
These people weren't fighting any 'system' or for any cause. They plainly saw an opportunity to steal, vandalise and ruin the lives of many hard-working, law-abiding citizens, under the so called 'protection' of the mob.
Hopefully this hard justice will serve as a warning that this simply will not be tolerated in our civil society. If anything, it actually emphasises how lenient the court system normally is, and I firmly believe that sentencing should always be this strict.
Hopefully this hard justice will serve as a warning that this simply will not be tolerated in our civil society.
That warning is better served by preceding a potential riot with a few decades of prompt, strict, and small punishments for failures of civility. A person who knows that there will be consequences does not participate in a riot. Or at least it would be a polite English riot with the mob leaders passing out cucumber sandwiches.
... I firmly believe that sentencing should always be this strict.
Alas, punishing an impromptu mob for the arson of its most destructive member does not un-burn-down a buildingful of shops, and the thrill of seeing the mob railroaded might even encourage a career-criminal arsonist who knew to take precautions against being identified.
> Having witnessed first hand the devastation and destruction in Hackney - most small business owners who lost pretty much their whole lively hoods would state that the sentences being handed out aren't enough - and I whole heartedly agree
That's why a neutral judge does the judging in a trial and not the biased victims.
Having witnessed first hand the devastation and destruction in Hackney - most small business owners who lost pretty much their whole lively hoods would state that the sentences being handed out aren't enough - and I whole heartedly agree.
How many of those small businessmen shook their heads but did nothing over happy slappers and countless other creeping failures of the rule of law? Civilizations don't fall because the barbarians get strong but because the middle class stops defending civility. If the yeomanry do not guard their liberty, they abdicate it.
I'll stop writing here. If I go on I will start quoting The Boondock Saints and lose all credibility.
It's only recently in the UK that the law now favours the right to defend yourself and your property; before there was a perception of criminals having more rights having broken into your home than you ever did.
Has there been a change to the law? Can you give a reference please. I thought UK law has always allowed reasonable force to be used in defending your property..
But for more minor offences attracting sentences under six months, magistrates' courts have been sitting through the night to "process" literally thousands of small-time, mainly first offender criminals.
Courts have been under great political pressure to serve swift and tough "justice" such that minor offences have attracted fairly lengthy prison sentences. Take the case of the mother of two young children who slept through the Manchester riots, but whose flatmate gave her a pair of stolen shorts from a store the morning after. She got five months in prison, for an offence which (if it even got as far as court) would normally attract a period of unpaid community work and/or a fine. [http://menmedia.co.uk/manchestereveningnews/news/s/1455638_m...]
I personally can't see how any of these people can get a fair trial when the court is sitting at 3am, it's less than a week since their arrest, and politicians are pressing hard on unpaid magistrates for disproportionate sentences in a vague attempt to give the impression that a government that's fairly weak and lacking in public support is being "tough on crime."
I feel for those who are caught up in this system right now. I am no apologist for criminals, but at the moment, people leading fairly fragile and frugal existences are having even that taken away for political point-scoring.