Six months for nicking a bottle water

dhope

The appeals are in, some successful, others not. Sadly the case of the Water Bottle Bandit (TM) wasn't mentioned.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-15359822

Short of using red ink, capital letters and triple-underlining, the Lord Chief Justice could not have been clearer why those jailed over the riots should expect to be treated severely.

"Those who deliberately participate in disturbances of this magnitude, causing injury and damage and fear to even the most stout-hearted of citizens, and who individually commit further crimes during the course of the riots are committing aggravated crimes.

"They must be punished accordingly, and the sentences should be designed to deter others from similar criminal activity. This is not new-found sentencing policy."

mybreakfastconsisted

Sentenced within days and hefty sentences handed out, and the copper who killed Ian Tomlinson hasn't even stood trial yet, two and a half years after the death.

dhope

mybreakfastconsisted wrote:

Sentenced within days and hefty sentences handed out, and the copper who killed Ian Tomlinson hasn't even stood trial yet, two and a half years after the death.

Oh, forget it :roll:

Something about Hitler.
There, Godwins Law, thread done.

EKE_38BPM

Just to tie up all the loose threads, I blame Wiggle for the riotting Nazi travellers who don't travel or save enough for the cost of the babies.

Oh, and the girls are in knitwear. Damn good work on that thread by Kieran, BTW

rick_chasey

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/dec/0 ... iots-study

LSE-Guardian study into the riots - with brief conclusions...

il_principe

Odd study really. Essentially asking people to post-rationalise why they rioted. Hardly surprising they've got the results they have.

rick_chasey

Il Principe wrote:

Odd study really. Essentially asking people to post-rationalise why they rioted. Hardly surprising they've got the results they have.

How else would you go about finding out why people rioted?

notsoblue

Il Principe wrote:

Odd study really. Essentially asking people to post-rationalise why they rioted. Hardly surprising they've got the results they have.

Yeah, I thought that. I think this is probably the most telling part of the conclusions:

"Many rioters conceded that their involvement in looting was simply down to opportunism, saying that a perceived suspension of normal rules presented them with an opportunity to acquire goods and luxury items they could not ordinarily afford. They often described the riots as a chance to obtain "free stuff" or sought to justify the theft."

Whats interesting is that people justified the theft in a way that implied that they feel that they were somehow entitled to something they weren't getting. Its tempting to draw parallels between this sentiment and the general consumerist attitude that has lead to people taking on far too much debt to maintain a lifestyle they can't afford.

il_principe

I'd start by not giving them the opportunity to post rationalise many weeks after the event...

rick_chasey

Il Principe wrote:

I'd start by not giving them the opportunity to post rationalise many weeks after the event...

A study's a study right?

The issues with post rationalised are a given.

It's still worth seeing what they say, even in the context of 'how is it rationalised'?

Like I said, how else are you going to find out? Closer is better than not.

notsoblue

Rick Chasey wrote:

Il Principe wrote:

I'd start by not giving them the opportunity to post rationalise many weeks after the event...

A study's a study right?

The issues with post rationalised are a given.

It's still worth seeing what they say, even in the context of 'how is it rationalised'?

Like I said, how else are you going to find out? Closer is better than not.

The question is what do we do with these conclusions?

rick_chasey

You'd hope they consider it when reviewing public policy and legislation.

The problems with stop & search have been mentioned by three different studies now.

sketchley

notsoblue wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Il Principe wrote:

I'd start by not giving them the opportunity to post rationalise many weeks after the event...

A study's a study right?

The issues with post rationalised are a given.

It's still worth seeing what they say, even in the context of 'how is it rationalised'?

Like I said, how else are you going to find out? Closer is better than not.

The question is what do we do with these conclusions?

Stop marketing to young people aspirational products and lifestyles which they cannot afford, that would be a good start.

sketchley

Rick Chasey wrote:

You'd hope they consider it when reviewing public policy and legislation.

The problems with stop & search have been mentioned by three different studies now.

Interesting, you can read the stop and search stat in two ways. There is clearly a correlation between the rioters and stop and search as 73% of the rioters said they had been stopped in the previous 12months, which is 8 times higher than non rioters. This would imply a link of the policy being one of the causes of the rioting. However the 2nd way to read it is that it may be the case that people likely to be engaged in rioting are also likely to be engaged in activity that leads to stop and search. In other words that fact that these people went on to riot mean the police were probably justified in the stop and search. What we do not know is the percentage of people stopped and searched who did not riot.....

rick_chasey

Sketchley wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

You'd hope they consider it when reviewing public policy and legislation.

The problems with stop & search have been mentioned by three different studies now.

Interesting, you can read the stop and search stat in two ways. There is clearly a correlation between the rioters and stop and search as 73% of the rioters said they had been stopped in the previous 12months, which is 8 times higher than non rioters. This would imply a link of the policy being one of the causes of the rioting. However the 2nd way to read it is that it may be the case that people likely to be engaged in rioting are also likely to be engaged in activity that leads to stop and search. In other words that fact that these people went on to riot mean the police were probably justified in the stop and search. What we do not know is the percentage of people stopped and searched who did not riot.....

For sure, statistically, the correlation means nothing. There are more police in areas where there are high crime but that doesn't mean police generate crime.

However, the stop & search has been consistently referenced re the alienation of police to the community. Given that they're also young people, that alienation can (and does) create real social problems, especially re law & order.

sketchley

Yes but the alienation might be due to the fact that a group wishing to engage in a criminal activity gets prevented or stopped from doing it by the police. It doesn't help if the criminal activity is viewed by many in group as a normal part of life (smoking a joint for example). The comment that I don't like the police as they stop me from committing crime just doesn't work as the police's job is to stop crime. In this circumstance stop and search is not the problem, the fact the group engages in criminal activity is and it this that should be addressed.

rick_chasey

That's an enormous assumption to make though.

You don't know that.

Either way, community alienation from police is a problem, and it makes enforcement more difficult.

Take an extreme example - I remember in the wire, where an ex policeman takes a corner boy into a cell to be interviewed by an academic.

Basically the academic asks what the boy would do if say, his sister was victim of a crime. The corner boy says he'd f*ck him up. What if the corner boy was in jail and couldn't? He'd wait, or get someone else to do it. What if he couldn't find anyone else to do it, and he couldn't? *apoplectic rage* > The point being not once would the corner boy go to the police.

Now for sure, the kid is doing illegal stuff right? But the alienation is hurting the policing of other crimes he's not involved with.

That is what you have to avoid. You need the majority of the community on-side if you're going to police a community effectively and bring down crime.

daviesee

Rick Chasey wrote:

You need the majority of the community on-side if you're going to police a community effectively and bring down crime.

The majority of the community did not riot. Does that mean that the majority are already on-side?
The minority doesn't half make a lot of noise though.

rick_chasey

daviesee wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

You need the majority of the community on-side if you're going to police a community effectively and bring down crime.

The majority of the community did not riot. Does that mean that the majority are already on-side?

For sure. Though not rioting doesn't necessarily mean not alienated from police, but I get the point.

But, say, a significant proportion of younger people were. Let's say, 10% of younger people?

Now, if those 10% mean that around 50-60% of young people in the community are stop & searched, then the risk is greater.

After all, young people grow old.

sketchley

Rick Chasey wrote:

That's an enormous assumption to make though.

You don't know that.

I did say "might" :0)

Rick Chasey wrote:

Either way, community alienation from police is a problem, and it makes enforcement more difficult.

Take an extreme example - I remember in the wire, where an ex policeman takes a corner boy into a cell to be interviewed by an academic.

Basically the academic asks what the boy would do if say, his sister was victim of a crime. The corner boy says he'd f*ck him up. What if the corner boy was in jail and couldn't? He'd wait, or get someone else to do it. What if he couldn't find anyone else to do it, and he couldn't? *apoplectic rage* > The point being not once would the corner boy go to the police.

Now for sure, the kid is doing illegal stuff right? But the alienation is hurting the policing of other crimes he's not involved with.

That is what you have to avoid. You need the majority of the community on-side if you're going to police a community effectively and bring down crime.

Yes of course. But there are two thought processes with Stop and Search.

First that it is being target at that community for no good reason (like to black people being targeted in Brixton in the mid 80's by the met police) the second being that there is high proportion of criminal or suspected criminal behaviours associated with that community. My point is Stop and Search is the problem in the first example, but I'm not convinced that happens as much any more as it used to, but in the second example Stop and Search is consequence of the criminal activity and therefore not the problem, in which case it's the criminal activity that need to be addressed.

Perhaps I'm being pedantic, but the reason for the stop and search needs to be addressed. If the reason is police discriminating against a group then lets stop that from happening, if the reason is high crime within a community then lets work with that community to stop the crime.

rick_chasey

Re stop & search, you need to weigh up the value gained in solving/preventing crime (which I personally tend to think is overstated) against the costs - local attitudes towards police, future crimes failed to be reported (if it gets to that) etc.

Either way, more generally, it's worth listening to why people feel they rioted - even if they are trying to justify it to themselves.

One of the quote on the interactive bit on the Guardian website, I saw was from a woman who wanted to buy trainers.

She walked in, realised it was a free for all and figured sh!t, once in a lifetime opportunity to get it free, so she did.

Can't see any justification there - seems pretty honest.

sketchley

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/soci ... 112054627/