Six months for nicking a bottle water

Sewinman

:shock: The hysteria has gone to the heads of the judiciary, it would seem.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... onths.html

Gussio

Indeed. The sentance is far too lenient.

Sewinman

Gussio wrote:

Indeed. The sentance is far too lenient.

Lenient? Don't be silly.

Six months seems hugely disproportionate to the crime committed, when compared to other crimes and the sentences handed out for them.

dhope

Who is to know whether he would have gone back and got other stuff had he not been confronted?
Did his actions influence any others who might otherwise have stood on the sidelines instead?

rolf_f

But most other people who nick bottles of water from Lidl don't burn the shop down afterwards. Necessary to ensure that anyone involved pays a big price.

el_presidente

Can't do the time, don't do the crime.

el_presidente

Sewinman wrote:

Gussio wrote:

Indeed. The sentance is far too lenient.

Lenient? Don't be silly.

Six months seems hugely disproportionate to the crime committed, when compared to other crimes and the sentences handed out for them.

A strong deterrent is needed otherwise in a few weeks time when it appears to have all calmed down the Met will shoot some other poor bastard, the BBMs will fly and it will all kick off again.

asprilla

dhope wrote:

Who is to know whether he would have gone back and got other stuff had he not been confronted?

Careful, straying into the territory of the Thought Police.....

Sewinman

dhope wrote:

Who is to know whether he would have gone back and got other stuff had he not been confronted?
Did his actions influence any others who might otherwise have stood on the sidelines instead?

I don't see the relevance of your first hypothetical question.

From my reading he entered the shop at 2.30am, after it had been looted.

el_presidente

Sewinman wrote:

dhope wrote:

Who is to know whether he would have gone back and got other stuff had he not been confronted?
Did his actions influence any others who might otherwise have stood on the sidelines instead?

I don't see the relevance of your first hypothetical question.

From my reading he entered the shop at 2.30am, after it had been looted.

After it had been looted?? What was he doing, helping to tidy up?

solosuperia

First and foremost, I don't condone was has being going on but anyway have a read of this:-
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/peter ... he-bottom/

Sewinman

el_presidente wrote:

Sewinman wrote:

dhope wrote:

Who is to know whether he would have gone back and got other stuff had he not been confronted?
Did his actions influence any others who might otherwise have stood on the sidelines instead?

I don't see the relevance of your first hypothetical question.

From my reading he entered the shop at 2.30am, after it had been looted.

After it had been looted?? What was he doing, helping to tidy up?

I was answering this question - "Did his actions influence any others". Given it was 2.30am I am presuming he did not, as the shop had already been ransacked and looted.

Come on - have some common sense. He nicked some water and is going to jail for six months.

Greg T

Sewinman wrote:

From my reading he entered the shop at 2.30am, after it had been looted.

Now THAT is what I call funny.

The situation where mass criminality is possible requires two things

1. Low likelihood of getting caught
2. Low penalty if you do

Cost benefit.

So . . . .

They swarm and overstretch plod to decrease the likelihood of getting caught and hope that the penalty isn't changed and the same old rules apply.

it would appear not.

Feck him sideways - no sympathy - nil.

Koncordski

He thought, "well everyone else is doing it, so I might as well".

At no point does it make his actions acceptable, he's not sorry he did it he's sorry he got caught.

Actions have consequences, tough lesson for him but I'm not sympathetic. Sorry.

MonkeyMonster

Sewinman wrote:

Come on - have some common sense. He nicked some water and is going to jail for six months.

I very much doubt you will get anyone to agree it should be less. Our reactions are in context. Amongst other things he added to the image of looting being totally acceptable and "the done thing".

Had it been any other day then we'd agree

Raphapimp

Police will shoot ' some poor bastard'. Yeah they do that all the while, no they shot a scumbag, plain and simple. Innocient law abiding people don't tend to get greeted by armed police.

Did he deserve 6 months for stealing a water bottle, maybe not, but he broke the law and needs to be punished. You stamp down on smaller crimes, you stop larger crimes, Rudy Giuliani proved that with his 3 strikes rule. Less scumbags on the street, less people to commit crimes.

el_presidente

Sewinman wrote:

el_presidente wrote:

Sewinman wrote:

dhope wrote:

Who is to know whether he would have gone back and got other stuff had he not been confronted?
Did his actions influence any others who might otherwise have stood on the sidelines instead?

I don't see the relevance of your first hypothetical question.

From my reading he entered the shop at 2.30am, after it had been looted.

After it had been looted?? What was he doing, helping to tidy up?

I was answering this question - "Did his actions influence any others". Given it was 2.30am I am presuming he did not, as the shop had already been ransacked and looted.

Come on - have some common sense. He nicked some water and is going to jail for six months.

well he's certainly a bit unlucky. But my previous comments stand re a deterrent. Boo hoo hoo for himm

mcj78

Might seem harsh for nicking a bottle of water, but how long will they actually serve - 3 or 4 months in reality & maybe even less if first offence - personally I reckon all the little (& some not-so-little) arseholes deserve whatever they get & then some.

I've read comments re. rioters being faced with losing their jobs/homes/kids if they go to prison & thought "fantastic" - I'd really like to see the "prison barge" idea re-introduced for them & let them serve their time in the middle of the channel on some cold rusting shitheap while their job/home/kids go to folk who actually give a monkeys about them.

If I had a family & kids to support the last thing i'd be doing would be throwing bottles at coppers & nicking laptops of an evening.

Hanging's too good for 'em etc. etc. etc.

/rant

wheezee

Where does all this bitterness and cruelty come from?

There are some seriously unhappy people on this forum.

el_presidente

Yes well in leafy Bath you can say we are bitter and cruel, you weren't up all night on Monday listening to the police helicopter and worrying about your house and kids whilst thugs burnt down the town centre a mile up the road.

Greg T

wheezee wrote:

Where does all this bitterness and cruelty come from?

There are some seriously unhappy people on this forum.

how's this for a start?





Frankly I'm a lot happier watching doors getting kicked down and having six month sentences being passed down for nicking a bottle of water. Right now I'd describe myself as chuffed.

Sewinman

You have all gone bonkers.

Greg T

Sewinman wrote:

You have all gone bonkers.

You are wet.

el_presidente

Sewinman wrote:

You have all gone bonkers.

5 men dead, tens of buildings burned down, millions of pounds of damage, Britain's reputation dragged through the dirt and you say WE are bonkers??


EDIT 6 if you include Duggan.

Sewinman

el_presidente wrote:

Sewinman wrote:

You have all gone bonkers.

5 men dead, tens of buildings burned down, millions of pounds of damage, Britain's reputation dragged through the dirt and you say WE are bonkers??


EDIT 6 if you include Duggan.

What has any of that got to do with this bloke?

There is a FB group you might like:

http://www.facebook.com/kneejerkgovernment

el_presidente

Sewinman wrote:

el_presidente wrote:

Sewinman wrote:

You have all gone bonkers.

5 men dead, tens of buildings burned down, millions of pounds of damage, Britain's reputation dragged through the dirt and you say WE are bonkers??


EDIT 6 if you include Duggan.

What has any of that got to do with this bloke?

He was part of the problem, big sentences are part of the solution. If he'd done a murder or arson he'd have got a lot more.

Hopefully some other thugs will look at this judgement and think twice about going out on the riot next time.

W1

It wasn't just nicking some water.

It was being part of a riot. That's not the same as shop-lifting.

The sentence reflects this aggravating feature - there are plenty of other aggravating features that increase sentences above "the norm" on a daily basis.

Mr Robinson has just realised that getting involved is a mass looting and riot has severe consequences for the individuals involved. Tough.

Your thread title is misleading....

bobinski

Raphapimp wrote:

Police will shoot ' some poor bastard'. Yeah they do that all the while, no they shot a scumbag, plain and simple. Innocient law abiding people don't tend to get greeted by armed police.

Did he deserve 6 months for stealing a water bottle, maybe not, but he broke the law and needs to be punished. You stamp down on smaller crimes, you stop larger crimes, Rudy Giuliani proved that with his 3 strikes rule. Less scumbags on the street, less people to commit crimes.

Stockwell? not the only example either...

6 months is wholly disproportionate for his offence. Whatever the circumstances. You dont throw aside sentencing guidelines and commonsense just to ausage understandable public rage.

Perhaps a community order with a work requirement to go and clear up the bloody mess he and the others created might have been a better idea.
Don't get me wrong. Sentences should be handed out to reflect the disorder especially for those that used or threatened violence, committed damage or arson or engaged in wholesale looting of high value goods. But 6 months for this. Ridiculous. Reflect too on what it will cost us to keep him locked up for 3 months.

Rich158

Sewinman wrote:

You have all gone bonkers.

I'll agree with you Sewinman, I think the sentence is hugely disproportionate. Whilst I agree that this needs to be set in the context of the riots and loss of life, the arguments that his actions may have encouraged others or he may have gone back and comitted more crimes are quite frankly absurd.

Greg T

Sewinman wrote:

What has any of that got to do with this bloke?

He was looting.

If he knew he'd get six months perhaps he wouldn't have looted? How many others would have thought twice?

Well they do now so maybe the cost/benefit equation just tipped a bit?

It's the mass of people each doing a little bit that allows this to happen - you participate at all you are part of the wider problem and contributing to the environment that overwhelms Plod and allows the mob to do what it wants.

six months for nicking water in "peacetime" might be too much - but this is not peacetime and the normal mores don't apply.

The penalties for getting caught were not sufficient to discourage looting obviously. The mass of people doing it decreased the likelihood of getting caught.

Low Cost High benefit - why not

High Cost High benefit - maybe I don't fancy it so much

W1

bobinski wrote:

Raphapimp wrote:

Police will shoot ' some poor bastard'. Yeah they do that all the while, no they shot a scumbag, plain and simple. Innocient law abiding people don't tend to get greeted by armed police.

Did he deserve 6 months for stealing a water bottle, maybe not, but he broke the law and needs to be punished. You stamp down on smaller crimes, you stop larger crimes, Rudy Giuliani proved that with his 3 strikes rule. Less scumbags on the street, less people to commit crimes.

Stockwell? not the only example either...

6 months is wholly disproportionate for his offence. Whatever the circumstances. You dont throw aside sentencing guidelines and commonsense just to ausage understandable public rage.

Perhaps a community order with a work requirement to go and clear up the bloody mess he and the others created might have been a better idea.
Don't get me wrong. Sentences should be handed out to reflect the disorder especially for those that used or threatened violence, committed damage or arson or engaged in wholesale looting of high value goods. But 6 months for this. Ridiculous. Reflect too on what it will cost us to keep him locked up for 3 months.

If you act as part of a mob you need to take the consequences of not only your own actions but the impact of the mob too. You can be sentenced for murder if part of a gang which kills someone, even if you don't hold the fatal knife.

This is not about nicking some water. It's about being part of a group which caused significant damage and distress.