Six months for nicking a bottle water

W1

neiltb wrote:

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).

If you form part of a group, why should you not be punished when that group causes significant damage or death? You already can for murder.

Of course a riot is an aggravating factor. It is likely to result in far greater damage, distress and harm than an individual acting alone. It may not be possible to identify which particular foot kicked which particular window - but it doesn't actually matter if the purpose and result of the group is to riot and loot.

If deterrent sentences are passed out and make individuals re-assess whether they wish to be considered part of a riot, and sentenced as such, then riots are less likely to occur in the first place.

W1

clarkey cat wrote:

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?

If the reason why you were committing said burglary was because there was less chance of getting caught because plod were busy, aggravated offence and longer sentence.

pangolin

People seen this? Quite amusing...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/aug/15/essex-water-fight-blackberry-messenger

clarkey cat

So, one way of counter-acting the police cuts would be to have stiffer sentences; the likelihood of getting caught when there are fewer police on the street decreases - and your propensity to commit crime (if so inclined) increases - if that being your reasoning behind committing the crime then you get a stiffer sentence?

neiltb

W1 wrote:

neiltb wrote:

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).

If you form part of a group, why should you not be punished when that group causes significant damage or death? You already can for murder.

Of course a riot is an aggravating factor. It is likely to result in far greater damage, distress and harm than an individual acting alone. It may not be possible to identify which particular foot kicked which particular window - but it doesn't actually matter if the purpose and result of the group is to riot and loot.

If deterrent sentences are passed out and make individuals re-assess whether they wish to be considered part of a riot, and sentenced as such, then riots are less likely to occur in the first place.

Do you believe all occupants of a car should be fined and get points if the driver speeds and they do nothing about it. A group that plan a murder are a little different to an unruly mob bouncing around a city.

sketchley

neiltb wrote:

W1 wrote:

neiltb wrote:

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).

If you form part of a group, why should you not be punished when that group causes significant damage or death? You already can for murder.

Of course a riot is an aggravating factor. It is likely to result in far greater damage, distress and harm than an individual acting alone. It may not be possible to identify which particular foot kicked which particular window - but it doesn't actually matter if the purpose and result of the group is to riot and loot.

If deterrent sentences are passed out and make individuals re-assess whether they wish to be considered part of a riot, and sentenced as such, then riots are less likely to occur in the first place.

Do you believe all occupants of a car should be fined and get points if the driver speeds and they do nothing about it. A group that plan a murder are a little different to an unruly mob bouncing around a city.

Interesting example. Answer is no as the occupants did not comit a crime. However, consider this example, should a driver caught speeding at 100mph on a motorway get the same sentance as 4 drivers all doing 100mph on the same road but clearly engaging in racing each other? Now add a fifth driver in who decides to join in as the other 4 are doing it, what sentance should he get the same as the four?

neiltb

why is one worse than the other? You could penalise the 'racers' for another crime (driving without due care etc). To penalise them differently for the speeding (assuming all had same previous record (none in this case) is in my mind wrong.

Jailing someone for 6 months for theft of a bottle of water is, in my mind, an over reaction, I don't remember saying that being jailed for 6 months for nicking water and rioting is an over reaction (but how much rioting did this young man do?, news report is also non specific on actual charges laid).

bails87

pangolin wrote:

People seen this? Quite amusing...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/aug/15/essex-water-fight-blackberry-messenger

Not for the bloke being charged.

What if all this talk of SCR is taken as incitement to cycle furiously?!

rick_chasey

rjsterry wrote:

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.

It doesn't seem that straightforward

The sentencing advice from Her Majesty's Courts and Tribunals Service came to light after the chair of Camberwell Green magistrates court, Novello Noades, claimed that the court had been given a government "directive" that anyone involved in the rioting be given a custodial sentence. She later retracted her statement and said she was mortified to have used the term "directive".

W1

neiltb wrote:

why is one worse than the other? You could penalise the 'racers' for another crime (driving without due care etc). To penalise them differently for the speeding (assuming all had same previous record (none in this case) is in my mind wrong.

Jailing someone for 6 months for theft of a bottle of water is, in my mind, an over reaction, I don't remember saying that being jailed for 6 months for nicking water and rioting is an over reaction (but how much rioting did this young man do?, news report is also non specific on actual charges laid).

And this guy was penalised for being part of a riot - the equivalent of penalising the "racers" for "another crime".

I repeat, he was not jailed for 6 months for nicking some water, he was jailed for six months for burglary aggravated by the fact that it occurred as part of a riot. The thread title is deliberately misleading in order to somehow seek to minimise this chap's actions. In fact looting (which is what he was engaged with) was a serious part of the damage and distress caused in last week's riots. Or do you think that each person who engaged in looting should juist be treated as a "normal" shoplifter, no-one should go to prison and this sort of mob behaviour should not be reflected i the penalties handed out, encouraging it to be repeated?Do you not see any difference between someone walking into shop alone in broad daylight and nicking some water compared to someone engaed in a violent looting mob at night, breaking and entering?

You ask how much rioting did this chap do - but that's not the point. He acted (bu looting a shop) as part of a group of rioters. Whether he kicked a window in or not is irrelvant - he took advantage of the fact that someone else did and is therefore just as culpable for the looting and rioting aspects of the group.

mudcow007

theft is theft regardless of the value of the item

sketchley

mudcow007 wrote:

theft is theft regardless of the value of the item

Yes but and harm caused to the victim will have an impact on the sentencing so the value of the item is important as a higher value item may involve cause harm if stolen than a lower value item.

http://sentencingcouncil.judiciary.gov. ... elling.pdf

9. When assessing the harm caused by theft and burglary in a building other than a dwelling offences, the starting point should be the loss suffered by the victim. In general, the greater the loss, the more serious the offence. However, the monetary value of the loss may not reflect the full extent of the harm caused by the offence. The court should also take into account the impact of the offence on the victim (which may be significantly greater than the monetary value of the loss; this may be particularly important where the value of the loss is high in proportion to the victim’s financial circumstances even though relatively low in absolute terms), any harm to persons other than the direct victim, and any harm in the form of public concern or erosion of public confidence.

and

Aggravating and mitigating factors
11. The Council guideline Overarching Principles: Seriousness identifies a number of factors that might increase or mitigate the seriousness of an offence. For ease of reference, the factors are set out in Annex A.
12. The most common factors that are likely to aggravate an offence of theft or burglary in a building other than a dwelling are:
Factors indicating higher culpability
• planning of an offence;
• offenders operating in groups or gangs; and
• deliberate targeting of vulnerable victims.
Factors indicating a more than usually serious degree of harm
• victim is particularly vulnerable;
• high level of gain from the offence; and
• high value (including sentimental value) of property to the victim or substantial consequential loss.

It goes on you should read the document. Later on there are even tables indicating range of sentencing based on value of goods.

Greg T

Sketchley wrote:

http://sentencingcouncil.judiciary.gov. ... elling.pdf

I'm getting popcorn.

rjsterry

Sketchley wrote:

mudcow007 wrote:

theft is theft regardless of the value of the item

Yes but and harm caused to the victim will have an impact on the sentencing so the value of the item is important as a higher value item may involve cause harm if stolen than a lower value item.

http://sentencingcouncil.judiciary.gov. ... elling.pdf

9. When assessing the harm caused by theft and burglary in a building other than a dwelling offences, the starting point should be the loss suffered by the victim. In general, the greater the loss, the more serious the offence. However, the monetary value of the loss may not reflect the full extent of the harm caused by the offence. The court should also take into account the impact of the offence on the victim (which may be significantly greater than the monetary value of the loss; this may be particularly important where the value of the loss is high in proportion to the victim’s financial circumstances even though relatively low in absolute terms), any harm to persons other than the direct victim, and any harm in the form of public concern or erosion of public confidence.

and

Aggravating and mitigating factors
11. The Council guideline Overarching Principles: Seriousness identifies a number of factors that might increase or mitigate the seriousness of an offence. For ease of reference, the factors are set out in Annex A.
12. The most common factors that are likely to aggravate an offence of theft or burglary in a building other than a dwelling are:
Factors indicating higher culpability
• planning of an offence;
• offenders operating in groups or gangs; and
• deliberate targeting of vulnerable victims.
Factors indicating a more than usually serious degree of harm
• victim is particularly vulnerable;
• high level of gain from the offence; and
• high value (including sentimental value) of property to the victim or substantial consequential loss.

It goes on you should read the document. Later on there are even tables indicating range of sentencing based on value of goods.

I'd say the factors in bold could apply in this case - more vulnerable on account of having the shop windows smashed in.

sketchley

rjsterry wrote:

Sketchley wrote:

mudcow007 wrote:

theft is theft regardless of the value of the item

Yes but and harm caused to the victim will have an impact on the sentencing so the value of the item is important as a higher value item may involve cause harm if stolen than a lower value item.

http://sentencingcouncil.judiciary.gov. ... elling.pdf

9. When assessing the harm caused by theft and burglary in a building other than a dwelling offences, the starting point should be the loss suffered by the victim. In general, the greater the loss, the more serious the offence. However, the monetary value of the loss may not reflect the full extent of the harm caused by the offence. The court should also take into account the impact of the offence on the victim (which may be significantly greater than the monetary value of the loss; this may be particularly important where the value of the loss is high in proportion to the victim’s financial circumstances even though relatively low in absolute terms), any harm to persons other than the direct victim, and any harm in the form of public concern or erosion of public confidence.

and

Aggravating and mitigating factors
11. The Council guideline Overarching Principles: Seriousness identifies a number of factors that might increase or mitigate the seriousness of an offence. For ease of reference, the factors are set out in Annex A.
12. The most common factors that are likely to aggravate an offence of theft or burglary in a building other than a dwelling are:
Factors indicating higher culpability
• planning of an offence;
• offenders operating in groups or gangs; and
• deliberate targeting of vulnerable victims.
Factors indicating a more than usually serious degree of harm
• victim is particularly vulnerable;
• high level of gain from the offence; and
• high value (including sentimental value) of property to the victim or substantial consequential loss.

It goes on you should read the document. Later on there are even tables indicating range of sentencing based on value of goods.

I'd say the factors in bold could apply in this case - more vulnerable on account of having the shop windows smashed in.

Agreed. The " victim is particularly vulnerable" makes this a " serious degree of harm".

Now look at the table on page 19, I think we can safely say this is Burglary, and the goods were worth less than £2000.

Type/nature of activity : Burglary involving goods valued at less than £2,000
Starting point : Community order (MEDIUM)
Range : Fine-26 weeks custody

As we have established a "serious degree of harm" the maximum sentence as per the range for this value of goods is 26 weeks. So 6 months is spot on as per the guidelines.

Greg T

Sketchley wrote:

As we have established a "serious degree of harm" the maximum sentence as per the range for this value of goods is 26 weeks. So 6 months is spot on as per the guidelines.

But what about the Bankers? They should be forced to pay insurance and pay road tax too!

Sewinman

From my reading of the article the bloke acted alone, at 2.30am after the 'group' had dispersed whilst wandering back from his girl friend's house.

It is a bit laughable to describe a prone and empty Lidl shop as a 'vulnerable victim' or the theft of a bottle of water as 'a serious degree of harm'.

As mentioned elsewhere, there seems to have been a decree from upon high to bang them all up and not follow normal guidelines.

Common sense seems to have dried up.

W1

Sewinman wrote:

From my reading of the article the bloke acted alone, at 2.30am after the 'group' had dispersed whilst wandering back from his girl friend's house.

It is a bit laughable to describe a prone and empty Lidl shop as a 'vulnerable victim' or the theft of a bottle of water as 'a serious degree of harm'.

As mentioned elsewhere, there seems to have been a decree from upon high to bang them all up and not follow normal guidelines.

Common sense seems to have dried up.

Did you not read the guidelines posted above? There's no deviation from "normal" guidelines. The shop was unsecured having been broken into, at night, with no police available, hence why it was a "vulnerable victim". Further, the offence was an aggravated one by being part of a riot and widespread looting. Frankly for a looter I think he's got away lightly.

Sewinman

W1 wrote:

Sewinman wrote:

From my reading of the article the bloke acted alone, at 2.30am after the 'group' had dispersed whilst wandering back from his girl friend's house.

It is a bit laughable to describe a prone and empty Lidl shop as a 'vulnerable victim' or the theft of a bottle of water as 'a serious degree of harm'.

As mentioned elsewhere, there seems to have been a decree from upon high to bang them all up and not follow normal guidelines.

Common sense seems to have dried up.

Did you not read the guidelines posted above? There's no deviation from "normal" guidelines. The shop was unsecured having been broken into, at night, with no police available, hence why it was a "vulnerable victim". Further, the offence was an aggravated one by being part of a riot and widespread looting. Frankly for a looter I think he's got away lightly.

Yes I read them. Unsurprisingly, I don't agree with your interpretation of them.

rjsterry

Sewinman wrote:

From my reading of the article the bloke acted alone, at 2.30am after the 'group' had dispersed whilst wandering back from his girl friend's house.

It is a bit laughable to describe a prone and empty Lidl shop as a 'vulnerable victim' or the theft of a bottle of water as 'a serious degree of harm'.

As mentioned elsewhere, there seems to have been a decree from upon high to bang them all up and not follow normal guidelines.

Common sense seems to have dried up.

How is a shop with no windows not more vulnerable? Not so sure about 'serious degree of harm' but this is only the report we have, not the full court transcript. As also mentioned elsewhere, the judiciary are (vigorously) independent of government - judges don't like being told how to do their job by MPs (much like the Police) - so I think we can be confident that there is not some decree from upon high.

DonDaddyD

Personally think that there are three issues going here that need to be addressed:

1). Crime during the riots/looting.

Where there has been a crime and the person is convicted then said person should receive punishment that is consistent with the letter of the law and previous judgements.

So a man nicking a water bottle should be punished according to whatever crime that is (Spen clarification) and a person setting fire to Reeves corner should be judged for that. The punishments shouldn't be driven by the fact that another thousand people also chose to riot and loot and people are looking for retribution.

2). Participating contributing to the riots/looting etc

Along with the crimes they were found guilty of. Those found to be rioting/looting should be forced to carry out some form of community service to help clean up the destruction they've caused. - Not sure what you'd do with an 11yr old.

3). Longer term action that address why this occurred

Red Ed is right, knee jerk reactions and Cameron's rantings about waging war on gangs, youth and the non-conformists isn't going to solve anything but to make those people more angry. It's what you expect from unrepentant conservatives unwilling to accept that Britain may be different from their blind interpretation of it. "Big Society".

These groups need to be engaged in both a positive and constructive way but also in a way that clearly states a near zero tolerance for those still willing to break the law. Simply coming at them with nothing more than harsh words of zero tolerance and a war [on gangs] will likely make them rebel more.

And no, National Service and Citizenship tests for all 16yr olds are bullshit suggestions.

W1

Sewinman wrote:

W1 wrote:

Sewinman wrote:

From my reading of the article the bloke acted alone, at 2.30am after the 'group' had dispersed whilst wandering back from his girl friend's house.

It is a bit laughable to describe a prone and empty Lidl shop as a 'vulnerable victim' or the theft of a bottle of water as 'a serious degree of harm'.

As mentioned elsewhere, there seems to have been a decree from upon high to bang them all up and not follow normal guidelines.

Common sense seems to have dried up.

Did you not read the guidelines posted above? There's no deviation from "normal" guidelines. The shop was unsecured having been broken into, at night, with no police available, hence why it was a "vulnerable victim". Further, the offence was an aggravated one by being part of a riot and widespread looting. Frankly for a looter I think he's got away lightly.

Yes I read them. Unsurprisingly, I don't agree with your interpretation of them.

Nor agree with the judge, evidently. So you don't agree that the shop was a "vulnerable victim" being unsecured at night?

Still, I'm not surprised at your spin on this - slap on the wrists would mean this wouldn't happen again, right?

W1

DonDaddyD wrote:

Where there has been a crime and the person is convicted then said person should receive punishment that is consistent with the letter of the law and previous judgements.

So a man nicking a water bottle should be punished according to whatever crime that is (Spen clarification) and a person setting fire to Reeves corner should be judged for that. The punishments shouldn't be driven by the fact that another thousand people also chose to riot and loot and people are looking for retribution.

If you'd prefer, his crime was aggravated nicking of water, for which he was punished according to the guidelines. If you don't think that undertaking such a crime as part of a group, at a time when the police were not available due to the actions of said group, on a premises that was unsecure due to the actions of said group, and that the defendant took advantage of that situation do not make stealing the water aggravated then I'd be keen to know what would.

If he'd injured someone whilst stealing the water would people insist that he gets a slap on the wrist for stealing the water (as "normal") and a seperate punishment for the violence, or just one sentence that reflected the circumstances of the theft (which cannot and should not be detached from the crime itself).

One last time. He was not imprisoned for stealing some water. That indeed would be stupid in the absense of other factors. In this case, those other factors agravated his offence and lead him to being imprisoned. The offences are not the same and should not be treated as the same nor considered as such.

Sewinman

W1 wrote:

Sewinman wrote:

W1 wrote:

Sewinman wrote:

From my reading of the article the bloke acted alone, at 2.30am after the 'group' had dispersed whilst wandering back from his girl friend's house.

It is a bit laughable to describe a prone and empty Lidl shop as a 'vulnerable victim' or the theft of a bottle of water as 'a serious degree of harm'.

As mentioned elsewhere, there seems to have been a decree from upon high to bang them all up and not follow normal guidelines.

Common sense seems to have dried up.

Did you not read the guidelines posted above? There's no deviation from "normal" guidelines. The shop was unsecured having been broken into, at night, with no police available, hence why it was a "vulnerable victim". Further, the offence was an aggravated one by being part of a riot and widespread looting. Frankly for a looter I think he's got away lightly.

Yes I read them. Unsurprisingly, I don't agree with your interpretation of them.

Nor agree with the judge, evidently. So you don't agree that the shop was a "vulnerable victim" being unsecured at night?

Still, I'm not surprised at your spin on this - slap on the wrists would mean this wouldn't happen again, right?

No, I don't agree.

No, and neither do I think banging up a few people for disproportionate sentences to make examples of them will prevent similar social unrest.

W1

Sewinman wrote:

W1 wrote:

Sewinman wrote:

W1 wrote:

Sewinman wrote:

From my reading of the article the bloke acted alone, at 2.30am after the 'group' had dispersed whilst wandering back from his girl friend's house.

It is a bit laughable to describe a prone and empty Lidl shop as a 'vulnerable victim' or the theft of a bottle of water as 'a serious degree of harm'.

As mentioned elsewhere, there seems to have been a decree from upon high to bang them all up and not follow normal guidelines.

Common sense seems to have dried up.

Did you not read the guidelines posted above? There's no deviation from "normal" guidelines. The shop was unsecured having been broken into, at night, with no police available, hence why it was a "vulnerable victim". Further, the offence was an aggravated one by being part of a riot and widespread looting. Frankly for a looter I think he's got away lightly.

Yes I read them. Unsurprisingly, I don't agree with your interpretation of them.

Nor agree with the judge, evidently. So you don't agree that the shop was a "vulnerable victim" being unsecured at night?

Still, I'm not surprised at your spin on this - slap on the wrists would mean this wouldn't happen again, right?

No, I don't agree.

No, and neither do I think banging up a few people for disproportionate sentences to make examples of them will prevent similar social unrest.

What would you consider to be aggravating factors of this offence? Or do you really think it was just about a bottle of water and should be judged as such?

Sewinman

W1 wrote:

Sewinman wrote:

W1 wrote:

Sewinman wrote:

W1 wrote:

Sewinman wrote:

From my reading of the article the bloke acted alone, at 2.30am after the 'group' had dispersed whilst wandering back from his girl friend's house.

It is a bit laughable to describe a prone and empty Lidl shop as a 'vulnerable victim' or the theft of a bottle of water as 'a serious degree of harm'.

As mentioned elsewhere, there seems to have been a decree from upon high to bang them all up and not follow normal guidelines.

Common sense seems to have dried up.

Did you not read the guidelines posted above? There's no deviation from "normal" guidelines. The shop was unsecured having been broken into, at night, with no police available, hence why it was a "vulnerable victim". Further, the offence was an aggravated one by being part of a riot and widespread looting. Frankly for a looter I think he's got away lightly.

Yes I read them. Unsurprisingly, I don't agree with your interpretation of them.

Nor agree with the judge, evidently. So you don't agree that the shop was a "vulnerable victim" being unsecured at night?

Still, I'm not surprised at your spin on this - slap on the wrists would mean this wouldn't happen again, right?

No, I don't agree.

No, and neither do I think banging up a few people for disproportionate sentences to make examples of them will prevent similar social unrest.

What would you consider to be aggravating factors of this offence? Or do you really think it was just about a bottle of water and should be judged as such?

I have already said I see that there are aggravating factors and the sentence should be harsher than normal. I still think 6 months is ridiculous though....you don't...we disagree... that's life.

sketchley

Sewinman wrote:

W1 wrote:

Sewinman wrote:

W1 wrote:

Sewinman wrote:

W1 wrote:

Sewinman wrote:

From my reading of the article the bloke acted alone, at 2.30am after the 'group' had dispersed whilst wandering back from his girl friend's house.

It is a bit laughable to describe a prone and empty Lidl shop as a 'vulnerable victim' or the theft of a bottle of water as 'a serious degree of harm'.

As mentioned elsewhere, there seems to have been a decree from upon high to bang them all up and not follow normal guidelines.

Common sense seems to have dried up.

Did you not read the guidelines posted above? There's no deviation from "normal" guidelines. The shop was unsecured having been broken into, at night, with no police available, hence why it was a "vulnerable victim". Further, the offence was an aggravated one by being part of a riot and widespread looting. Frankly for a looter I think he's got away lightly.

Yes I read them. Unsurprisingly, I don't agree with your interpretation of them.

Nor agree with the judge, evidently. So you don't agree that the shop was a "vulnerable victim" being unsecured at night?

Still, I'm not surprised at your spin on this - slap on the wrists would mean this wouldn't happen again, right?

No, I don't agree.

No, and neither do I think banging up a few people for disproportionate sentences to make examples of them will prevent similar social unrest.

What would you consider to be aggravating factors of this offence? Or do you really think it was just about a bottle of water and should be judged as such?

I have already said I see that there are aggravating factors and the sentence should be harsher than normal. I still think 6 months is ridiculous though....you don't...we disagree... that's life.

I'll play. Ok so we agree that there are aggravating factors. Do we also agree that this is Burglary and not just theft as in Shoplifting)? Let's also agree that for sake of argument no evidence was presented to court that the man in question did take part in the riot other than to steal this bottle of water. Now read the guidelines again and let us know what sentence you would give if you were a magistrate and explain why?

I've already done this, see above, and I think 6 months is bang on.

junglist_matty

You can only give someone so much help.... Its up to themselves to sort their life out, I get so annoyed with people saying shit like oh, we need to do this that and the other.... Hell they have enough help.

I saw some people comparing us to America!!!! What a joke, have you guys ever been there??? I doubt it going by those comments.... 33% of Americans live in conditions comparable to third world countries, they literally have nothing, no benefits, no healthcare, no education, no jobs, nothing.....

That is a world apart from our poor communities who simply moan they have nothing when in fact they are simply too lazy and couldn't care less, then they realise they can't live like this and then find someone to blame so guess what... The government get blamed.

Then the police get blamed for not responding quick enough.... I mean come on!! What the hell? Do you want to live in a society such as Iraq with riot police or even army on 24/7 patrols just to prevent the possibility of unrest!? Its not the police's fault!!!


As for the guy who got 6months.... who cares? I don't ....He walked in there and he took something that wasn't his, regardless of what it was worth that is simply wrong. So he gets away with it and next time its something more valuable and so on and so on..... Plus the Police caught him inside Lidl with water.... I mean what else was he looking for in there? It wasn't until he saw the police he threw the water and ran away....

That and the fact someone needs to be made example of as a deterrent to others.

DonDaddyD

junglist_matty wrote:

The greatest user name I've seen on this forum ever.

You sir are legendary!

andyb78

DonDaddyD wrote:

Personally think that there are three issues going here that need to be addressed:

1). Crime during the riots/looting.

Where there has been a crime and the person is convicted then said person should receive punishment that is consistent with the letter of the law and previous judgements.

So a man nicking a water bottle should be punished according to whatever crime that is (Spen clarification) and a person setting fire to Reeves corner should be judged for that. The punishments shouldn't be driven by the fact that another thousand people also chose to riot and loot and people are looking for retribution.

2). Participating contributing to the riots/looting etc

Along with the crimes they were found guilty of. Those found to be rioting/looting should be forced to carry out some form of community service to help clean up the destruction they've caused. - Not sure what you'd do with an 11yr old.

3). Longer term action that address why this occurred

Red Ed is right, knee jerk reactions and Cameron's rantings about waging war on gangs, youth and the non-conformists isn't going to solve anything but to make those people more angry. It's what you expect from unrepentant conservatives unwilling to accept that Britain may be different from their blind interpretation of it. "Big Society".

These groups need to be engaged in both a positive and constructive way but also in a way that clearly states a near zero tolerance for those still willing to break the law. Simply coming at them with nothing more than harsh words of zero tolerance and a war [on gangs] will likely make them rebel more.

And no, National Service and Citizenship tests for all 16yr olds are bullshit suggestions.

I'm not Spen, but I have *some* knowledge of criminal law. Seems a fairly clear cut case of Section 9:1 (b) burglary - which he seems to have been sentenced accordingly for? Think he's lucky not to have gone up to CC - maximum sentence is 14 years...(IIRC) Agree that the title of the thread is a little misleading. Really can't see how he can moan given the circs.