Six months for nicking a bottle water

garnett

Have to say my opinion of events and what should be done has changed a bit over the week.

On Monday night, our flat surrounded by gleeful looters showing off to each other, and 999 calls unanswered while fires were lit on the street outside, I have given my left nut for a sniper rifle, and wouldn't have thought too hard about using it.

I'd have liked the police to have caused some lasting injuries that night.

Now I can't help thinking, "In what other country could what have happened here occurred without larger loss of life or far more heavy oppression of civil liberties?"

Instead, within 24hrs, hundreds of people were relatively peaceful apprehended and processed. The rule of law enforced.

To be honest, I'm pretty proud to be British because of that. Cooler heads than mine in charge...

Now, reading about the muppets being charged (that dumb, dumb teacher) I can't help thinking that it wasn't brazen criminality (as I initially thought) but just utter brainlessness.

It's unfortunate they didn't realise the severity of looting in the eyes of the law (as others here also seem similarly unaware). To my knowledge it's always attracted stiff sentences.

d87heaven

SimonAH wrote:

......BUT
He is not a criminal. He is a random bloke who thought 'uck it, I'll have some of that.

...............

And then he crossed the line and a became a criminal when he was found guilty Plenty of people managed to restrain themselves and not go out looting.

I quite liked this open letter to the parents of Cameron.............

http://nathanieltapley.com/2011/08/10/an-open-letter-to-david-camerons-parents/

notsoblue

Garnett wrote:

Have to say my opinion of events and what should be done has changed a bit over the week.

On Monday night, our flat surrounded by gleeful looters showing off to each other, and 999 calls unanswered while fires were lit on the street outside, I have given my left nut for a sniper rifle, and wouldn't have thought too hard about using it.

I'd have liked the police to have caused some lasting injuries that night.

Now I can't help thinking, "In what other country could what have happened here occurred without larger loss of life or far more heavy oppression of civil liberties?"

Instead, within 24hrs, hundreds of people were relatively peaceful apprehended and processed. The rule of law enforced.

To be honest, I'm pretty proud to be British because of that. Cooler heads than mine in charge...

Now, reading about the muppets being charged (that dumb, dumb teacher) I can't help thinking that it wasn't brazen criminality (as I initially thought) but just utter brainlessness.

It's unfortunate they didn't realise the severity of looting in the eyes of the law (as others here also seem similarly unaware). To my knowledge it's always attracted stiff sentences.

Thats a pretty insightful post, well said.

Paul E

d87heaven wrote:

SimonAH wrote:

......BUT
He is not a criminal. He is a random bloke who thought 'uck it, I'll have some of that.

...............

And then he crossed the line and a became a criminal when he was found guilty Plenty of people managed to restrain themselves and not go out looting.

I quite liked this open letter to the parents of Cameron.............

http://nathanieltapley.com/2011/08/10/an-open-letter-to-david-camerons-parents/

Apart from his father died not that long ago, so they did their research then.

When you commit a crime and are convicted that tend's to mean you are a criminal, that's how things tend to work. It isn't cancelled if you haven't done it before and you aren't going to in the future.

sketchley

http://vimeo.com/27618774

Does he have point? Not sure it's footlocker's marketing department as such that is the problem, but certainly the marketing of aspirational products that are not affoardable is one of the route causes. At the very least it was seen in which shops got attacked first.

Greg T

SimonAH wrote:

He is not a criminal. He is a random bloke who thought 'uck it, I'll have some of that..

you pick up the criminal label when convicted of a crime.

he is a criminal, he's a thief and looter - plead guilty, convicted, sentenced.

prj45

He wasn't put in prison for stealing a bottle of water he was put in prison for LOOTING.

It's not hard!

meanredspider

JZed wrote:

Who gives a hoot whether 6 months is "fair". Pretty sure the chap wasn't in Lidl just to nick a bottle of water. If he was then fair play to the judge for removing another idiot from the street.

I have no sympathy for any of those arrested, charged and found guilty of offences. They made a choice, they can live with the consequences.

This.

If he was "only" looting water, how bloody stupid must he be?
1. The stuff comes out of taps. And probably plenty of fire hoses.
2. Lidl water FFS! Hardly has great street value.

deptfordmarmoset

Eek, it looks like I'm the only one here who thinks that locking up kids in some kind of exemplary retaliation exercise is going to be completely counter-productive! I'd even support a limited amnesty for those who realise that they had got carried away in the heat of the moment, regret what they have done, and who would be prepared to put back in what they've just taken out (provided it didn't involve acts or threats of violence or the endangering of peoples' safety.)

It will be interesting to see what the reactions to this piece will be once it's opened for comments:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... ds-out-now

spen666

6 months for £1 THEFT?

no, its 6 months for a night time BURGLARY of a vunlerable victim, ie one who had already been the victim of a crime and who as a consequence of the earlier crime was vulnerable to another attack.

The criminal deserves all they got. 6 months for a burglary is a relatively light sentence

spen666

Burglary?

Yes - he entered premises as a trespasser (ie without permission) and stole therein. A clear classic burglary. There is no requirement of any force or breaking in to commit a burglary

deffler

Im glad that strong sentences are been applied, serves the scumbag right. Do the crime - Do the time. Yes it might only have been water however whose to say he hadnt earlier looted a lot more for which he wasnt caught?

Confusedboy

i have little sympathy for a criminal who has been apprehended and duly punished, but I worry about the message being sent out in these draconian sentences being handed down to the rioters and/or looters. It is fairly obvious that, under 'normal' circumstances, such a sentence would not have been dealt out to a thief who stole a £1 water bottle, and there are plenty of other instances of abnormal punishments being associated with the recent distubances.

When the dust has settled, and the inquiries are set up, it may be thought that the independence of the judiciary has been compromised, as it looks as if they have been instructed, by the very government that it is essential that they are seen to be independent of, to 'come down heavy' on rioters/looters in order to make the political point that these behaviours will not be tolerated. Nothing wrong with that of course, but it is important that all criminals are treated fairly and equally, so that they are denied the opportunity to claim that they have been singled out in some way for a particular sort of treatment. In other words, rioters and looters are criminals just like any other criminals and should be treated exactly like any other criminals.

Simon the Pieman

http://ybtj.justice.gov.uk/

Have a look at the above link and see how long you would sentence criminals for. Dont think it mentions rioting but could be good to see how the Judge gets to their decision.

shouldbeinbed

deffler wrote:

Im glad that strong sentences are been applied, serves the scumbag right. Do the crime - Do the time. Yes it might only have been water however whose to say he hadnt earlier looted a lot more for which he wasnt caught?

I've no issue with the sentence imposed but this post worries me a bit.

We'll decide what you've done whether there's proof or not.

You'd be happy to be told you've been gatso'd at 35mph but we'll ban you from driving because you may have been doing 100 earlier.

sketchley

shouldbeinbed wrote:

deffler wrote:

Im glad that strong sentences are been applied, serves the scumbag right. Do the crime - Do the time. Yes it might only have been water however whose to say he hadnt earlier looted a lot more for which he wasnt caught?

I've no issue with the sentence imposed but this post worries me a bit.

We'll decide what you've done whether there's proof or not.

You'd be happy to be told you've been gatso'd at 35mph but we'll ban you from driving because you may have been doing 100 earlier.

Might not be the best example the harsh sentance might not of been for what they had done ealier, but more because of what had happend to the store earlier. There is a difference between walking in to an open store and shopliting a bottle of water in front of security and staff etc and stealing from an ungared and vunerable premisis. If you don't make this distinction then you could have a senario where someone breaks the glass on shopfront then gets his mate to go in and do the stealing as if they are both caught they get small sentances as one did one thing and the other the other.

To put it another way, say a guy had been mugged and was laying on the floor unable to defending himeself, if someone then stole a mobile phone from this person by taking advantage of the fact he had already been attacked and could not defend himself, should this robber be treated harsher than say a pick pocket stealing a phone on the tube where no voilence occurs?

rick_chasey

There's also the issue of fariness with regard to offences committed during the riots and other offences.

That issue was raised by the Lib Dems regarding the council's trying to evict people prosecuted for criminality that occured doring the riot.

The punishments should not be harsher just because they occured during a time of civil disorder.

tailwindhome

Rick Chasey wrote:

The punishments should not be harsher just because they occured during a time of civil disorder.

Of course they should.

rick_chasey

TailWindHome wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

The punishments should not be harsher just because they occured during a time of civil disorder.

Of course they should.

You really think that?

Bizarre.

The Rookie

TailWindHome wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

The punishments should not be harsher just because they occured during a time of civil disorder.

Of course they should.

+1, though not because it was at a time of civil disorder but becuase they were part of and adding too that disorder.

Simon

rick_chasey

The Beginner wrote:

TailWindHome wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

The punishments should not be harsher just because they occured during a time of civil disorder.

Of course they should.

+1, though not because it was at a time of civil disorder but becuase they were part of and adding too that disorder.

Simon

How is it different?

If I walk down a street with no police nearby and smash a shop window open to steal something, how is that any different to what happened in London?

If 100 people do exactly the same for 100 different shops in the same city, then it's suddenly a riot. It's exactly the same offence, just one is a one off that evening, and the others are not.

sketchley

Rick Chasey wrote:

The Beginner wrote:

TailWindHome wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

The punishments should not be harsher just because they occured during a time of civil disorder.

Of course they should.

+1, though not because it was at a time of civil disorder but becuase they were part of and adding too that disorder.

Simon

How is it different?

If I walk down a street with no police nearby and smash a shop window open to steal something, how is that any different to what happened in London?

If 100 people do exactly the same for 100 different shops in the same city, then it's suddenly a riot. It's exactly the same offence, just one is a one off that evening, and the others are not.

It's not. However, the comparison in the context of this thread rather than it happening in the contex of a riot as per your example, seems to be being made between shoplifting a bottle of water, and stealing a bootle of water from a previously looted shop. They are not the same thing and should recieve different sentancing as a result; which they are. The comparision for consistant sentancing should be made with other cases of stealing from previously looted premisis when said looting didn't happen in the context of a riot. As most looting occurs during a riot this will be difficul but what happend in similar cases during the riots of the 1980s would be interesting to know.

Equally breaking the window and stealing is different from just stealing after someone else has broken the window so should recieve a different sentance as well. We have seen this happen with the former being refered to crown court while the later being given 6 months as majestrates so the judicary are making the distinction.

The things you are saying should happen in the justice system are happening.

p.s. As per the riot act you only need 12 people to start a riot not a 100.

tailwindhome

Rick Chasey wrote:

TailWindHome wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

The punishments should not be harsher just because they occured during a time of civil disorder.

Of course they should.

You really think that?

Bizarre.

It would be bizarre to suggest that the context and circumstances within which the crime was committed shouldn't have a bearing on a) the decision to prosecute or b) the severity of the sentence.

If 100 people do exactly the same for 100 different shops in the same city, then it's suddenly a riot.

The key point, which IMHO provides the context which warrants a harsher sentence is that the 100 incidences wouldn't be unconnected events.


ETA

But the judge said: “The aggravating features are the background of serious public disorder and your part in that.”

Mr Sworld

What the looters were really doing...

Greg T

Rick Chasey wrote:

How is it different?

If I walk down a street with no police nearby and smash a shop window open to steal something, how is that any different to what happened in London?

If 100 people do exactly the same for 100 different shops in the same city, then it's suddenly a riot. It's exactly the same offence, just one is a one off that evening, and the others are not.

If you walk down a street today - now - and smash a window in - climb through and start to loot it plod will be be hot footing it over there pronto and you stand a good chance of getting caught - so your odds of getting caught and punished are high. The Punishment itself may be light - slapped wrists and community service so loved by the hand wringers.

Generally the high likelihood of getting knicked / escalating tariff for getting caught keeps a lid on things.

When mass looting occurs everyone thinks that plod has better things to do but catch them - the likelihood of getting caught drops (apparently and hilariously not so much). So mass looting tips the scales.

The mob mentality takes over and suddenly half of town is on fire.

I am completely comfortable and supportive of harsher sentences being passed for crimes commited during times of civil unrest if it means it prevents it.

I can't see how anyone thinks these crimes can be divorced from their context and those perpetrating them were not active participants and supporterrs of a situation in which people were killed, raped, robbed, beaten etc.

deptfordmarmoset

I am completely comfortable and supportive of harsher sentences being passed for crimes commited during times of civil unrest if it means it prevents it.

I think it's that little word ''if'' that's put me on a different track from the overwhelming majority here. I don't think it will prevent it. My fear is that it will just be storing problems up for the future. I hope I'm wrong though.

Butterd2

wheezee wrote:

Where does all this bitterness and cruelty come from?

There are some seriously unhappy people on this forum.

Did you suffer a lot of rioting in Bath?

neiltb

To those advocating higher sentences because of 'civil unrest' (careful of listening to that claptrap, now any protest can be called 'civil unrest' and subject to internet shut off, bbm shut off etc. It's all for your safety so OK then), you now feel that individually committed crimes are less of a problem? If people are convicted of murder in the riots are given life, what do you give the guy who kills his wife and acted alone.

Justice has to be applied but it also has to be consistent. The courts are just setting themselves up for waves of appeals for disproportionate sentences.

Iin the context of a riot you should be sentenced more to me sounds ridiculous, you are punishing people for the actions of others (as well as themselves).

rjsterry

Magistrates and Judges work within sentencing guidelines, and are independent from the government, so Cameron et al can say they'll insist on tough punishments if they like, but it's not up to them.

For my money, the surrounding riot can be an aggravating factor. It depends on the case in question (and we just have the headline on this one, not a full transcript), so although he may only have stolen a bottle of water, he may have been involved in the rioting as well, as opposed to 'just passing and felt thirsty'.

clarkey cat

what if you were just committing a good old fashioned burglary whilst all the riots were going on - but you would have been doing it whether they were happening or not?

harsher sentence - or normal sentence?