Six months for nicking a bottle water
Comments
-
http://www.fleetstreetfox.com/Then there's a 22-year-old girl from a good family who was going to start university next month. During the riots last week she, her sister and a friend went out to rubber-neck what was going on and were drawn to the Argos store in Croydon, where a gang of 100 other people had torn through the shop stealing stock.
The girl didn't steal anything. She didn't smash anything. Her sister had nicked some chewing gum from a Kwiksave. The girl and her friends were arrested outside the shop, and when they were hauled to court last week all admitted intent to steal and were sentenced to six months in jail
Thoughts?
Her fault for admitting it? Would she have got a harsher sentence if she'd denied it and then been found guilty?0 -
bails87 wrote:
http://www.fleetstreetfox.com/Then there's a 22-year-old girl from a good family who was going to start university next month. During the riots last week she, her sister and a friend went out to rubber-neck what was going on and were drawn to the Argos store in Croydon, where a gang of 100 other people had torn through the shop stealing stock.
The girl didn't steal anything. She didn't smash anything. Her sister had nicked some chewing gum from a Kwiksave. The girl and her friends were arrested outside the shop, and when they were hauled to court last week all admitted intent to steal and were sentenced to six months in jail
Thoughts?
Her fault for admitting it? Would she have got a harsher sentence if she'd denied it and then been found guilty?
Well if they admitted intending to steal then presumably that's what they were intending to do? In which case well done Dibble for stopping and arresting them before they got the chance. Doesn't remove their intent, which that article appears to gloss over, nor their part in the looting.0 -
Sketchley wrote: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.
I already said I thought 100 hours community service would have been about right.0 -
Sewinman wrote:Sketchley wrote: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.
I already said I thought 100 hours community service would have been about right.
On what basis? Not on the basis of the guidelines you have suggested have been ignored. That would be far too lenient for a commercial burglary, regardless of the aggravating factors.0 -
The historians have come through. Finally.
Statistical link to austerity measures and civil disturbances.
Particularly close correlation in the UK.0 -
W1 wrote:bails87 wrote:
http://www.fleetstreetfox.com/Then there's a 22-year-old girl from a good family who was going to start university next month. During the riots last week she, her sister and a friend went out to rubber-neck what was going on and were drawn to the Argos store in Croydon, where a gang of 100 other people had torn through the shop stealing stock.
The girl didn't steal anything. She didn't smash anything. Her sister had nicked some chewing gum from a Kwiksave. The girl and her friends were arrested outside the shop, and when they were hauled to court last week all admitted intent to steal and were sentenced to six months in jail
Thoughts?
Her fault for admitting it? Would she have got a harsher sentence if she'd denied it and then been found guilty?
Well if they admitted intending to steal then presumably that's what they were intending to do? In which case well done Dibble for stopping and arresting them before they got the chance. Doesn't remove their intent, which that article appears to gloss over, nor their part in the looting.
As far as we're aware she didn't play any part in the looting. She didn't steal anything or damage anything.0 -
bails87 wrote:W1 wrote:bails87 wrote:
http://www.fleetstreetfox.com/Then there's a 22-year-old girl from a good family who was going to start university next month. During the riots last week she, her sister and a friend went out to rubber-neck what was going on and were drawn to the Argos store in Croydon, where a gang of 100 other people had torn through the shop stealing stock.
The girl didn't steal anything. She didn't smash anything. Her sister had nicked some chewing gum from a Kwiksave. The girl and her friends were arrested outside the shop, and when they were hauled to court last week all admitted intent to steal and were sentenced to six months in jail
Thoughts?
Her fault for admitting it? Would she have got a harsher sentence if she'd denied it and then been found guilty?
Well if they admitted intending to steal then presumably that's what they were intending to do? In which case well done Dibble for stopping and arresting them before they got the chance. Doesn't remove their intent, which that article appears to gloss over, nor their part in the looting.
As far as we're aware she didn't play any part in the looting. She didn't steal anything or damage anything.
She admitted intent to steal - that's playing a part. Just because the rozzers catch you before you do something doesn't mean you're innocent of any crime. She has admitted her guilt already so I don't see what there is to discuss? The arguments about the sentence are exactly the same as have been to'd and fro'd for the last 8 pages.0 -
Sewinman wrote:Sketchley wrote: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.
I already said I thought 100 hours community service would have been about right.
This is my interpretation of the guidelines in this case. First it is Burglary from a premises that is not a dwelling , second value of goods are less than £2000 pounds, the range of sentencing is therefore from a Fine to 26 weeks custody depending on aggravating factors, or in terms of the guidelines degree of harm.
The shop was unprotected having been previously looted, and while there is no evidence accused took part in that looting, this does fall in to the description of "victim is particularly vulnerable" which means according to to the guidelines it was a " serious degree of harm". Which in turn means the upper part of the sentencing range should apply.
So 6 months is spot on as per the guidelines.
Now please can you explain as I have above what you interpretation of the guidelines are that allows you to arrive at 100 hours community services. Other than this is what you think is about right for this offence. I'm sure you would agree that magistrates should not just issue sentences that they feel are about right and should follow the guidelines so please do so yourself and come up with a conclusions and share it.
For the record I too think 6 months does "sound steep" but it is in line with the guidelines.--
Chris
Genesis Equilibrium - FCN 3/4/50 -
Rick Chasey wrote:The historians have come through. Finally.
Statistical link to austerity measures and civil disturbances.
Particularly close correlation in the UK.
What Histrorians? You mean two Guardian writers?
Surprise surprise, they think tax increases are better because they don't cause riots. Maybe because tax-payers see the sense in not destroying property which the government has to pay to replace?
Causation or correlation? It's not as clear as you (or they) seem to think.0 -
W1 wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:The historians have come through. Finally.
Statistical link to austerity measures and civil disturbances.
Particularly close correlation in the UK.
What Histrorians? You mean two Guardian writers?
Surprise surprise, they think tax increases are better because they don't cause riots. Maybe because tax-payers see the sense in not destroying property which the government has to pay to replace?
Causation or correlation? It's not as clear as you (or they) seem to think.
All I said was that there was a correlation between civil disturbances and national austerity measures.
You're making me out to say stuff I'm not.
Also, these guys have not written for the guardian before.
One is; Hans-Joachim Voth is ICREA research professor of economics at Universitat Pompeu Fabra in Barcelona. Educated in Germany, Italy and the UK, he graduated with a DPhil from Oxford in 1996. In his research, he focuses on political instability and asset prices, financial crises and bubbles
The other is:
Jacopo Ponticelli is a Phd candidate in economics at Universitat Pompeu Fabra, Barcelona. He studied economics and political science in Milan, Paris and Barcelona. His research work is mainly on firm dynamics, financial institutions and economic development0 -
W1 wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:The historians have come through. Finally.
Statistical link to austerity measures and civil disturbances.
Particularly close correlation in the UK.
What Histrorians? You mean two Guardian writers?
Surprise surprise, they think tax increases are better because they don't cause riots. Maybe because tax-payers see the sense in not destroying property which the government has to pay to replace?
Causation or correlation? It's not as clear as you (or they) seem to think.
So you're saying that no tax payers rioted?0 -
W1 wrote:Sewinman wrote:Sketchley wrote: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.
I already said I thought 100 hours community service would have been about right.
On what basis? Not on the basis of the guidelines you have suggested have been ignored. That would be far too lenient for a commercial burglary, regardless of the aggravating factors.
On the basis that the sentencing guidance ranges from a fine to 26 weeks.0 -
bails87 wrote:W1 wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:The historians have come through. Finally.
Statistical link to austerity measures and civil disturbances.
Particularly close correlation in the UK.
What Histrorians? You mean two Guardian writers?
Surprise surprise, they think tax increases are better because they don't cause riots. Maybe because tax-payers see the sense in not destroying property which the government has to pay to replace?
Causation or correlation? It's not as clear as you (or they) seem to think.
So you're saying that no tax payers rioted?
No. Have you read the article? The non-historians suggest that tax increases are better because they don't lead to riots. I would suggest that generally people who are already paying taxes don't riot when faced with increases because they understand the consequences.
Would I say that the rioters were laregely made up of people who pay little or no tax? Yes, certainly a disproportionate number of them won't be middle or high rate tax payers. Do you disagree?0 -
Sewinman wrote:W1 wrote:Sewinman wrote:Sketchley wrote: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.
I already said I thought 100 hours community service would have been about right.
On what basis? Not on the basis of the guidelines you have suggested have been ignored. That would be far too lenient for a commercial burglary, regardless of the aggravating factors.
On the basis that the sentencing guidance ranges from a fine to 26 weeks.
OK, and including the aggravated factors that you accept apply in this situation, you'd put this offence towards the very bottom of the scale because....?0 -
W1 wrote:
No. Have you read the article? The non-historians suggest that tax increases are better because they don't lead to riots. I would suggest that generally people who are already paying taxes don't riot when faced with increases because they understand the consequences.
Would I say that the rioters were laregely made up of people who pay little or no tax? Yes, certainly a disproportionate number of them won't be middle or high rate tax payers. Do you disagree?
They're not saying 'tax increase are better'. They say there's less of a statistical correlation between tax rises and civil disturbances versus austerity measures and civil disturbances.
That's all they're saying. The inference is that, if you want less civil disturbances, the likeliest way to do that is to avoid austerity measures.
That's an inference though, not a conclusion.0 -
Rick Chasey wrote:W1 wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:The historians have come through. Finally.
Statistical link to austerity measures and civil disturbances.
Particularly close correlation in the UK.
What Histrorians? You mean two Guardian writers?
Surprise surprise, they think tax increases are better because they don't cause riots. Maybe because tax-payers see the sense in not destroying property which the government has to pay to replace?
Causation or correlation? It's not as clear as you (or they) seem to think.
All I said was that there was a correlation between civil disturbances and national austerity measures.
You're making me out to say stuff I'm not.
Also, these guys have not written for the guardian before.
One is; Hans-Joachim Voth is ICREA research professor of economics at Universitat Pompeu Fabra in Barcelona. Educated in Germany, Italy and the UK, he graduated with a DPhil from Oxford in 1996. In his research, he focuses on political instability and asset prices, financial crises and bubbles
The other is:
Jacopo Ponticelli is a Phd candidate in economics at Universitat Pompeu Fabra, Barcelona. He studied economics and political science in Milan, Paris and Barcelona. His research work is mainly on firm dynamics, financial institutions and economic development
You've said the historians have "come through - finally.
They aren't historians.
They haven't "come through" with anything but a badly written article that starts with the word "fact" and then qualifies itself to nothingness.0 -
this still going?Le Cannon [98 Cannondale M400] [FCN: 8]
The Mad Monkey [2013 Hoy 003] [FCN: 4]0 -
MonkeyMonster wrote:this still going?
Surprising isn't it. Seems the chap may well be out of prison by the time it dies a death.0 -
Yes!W1 wrote:bails87 wrote:W1 wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:The historians have come through. Finally.
Statistical link to austerity measures and civil disturbances.
Particularly close correlation in the UK.
What Histrorians? You mean two Guardian writers?
Surprise surprise, they think tax increases are better because they don't cause riots. Maybe because tax-payers see the sense in not destroying property which the government has to pay to replace?
Causation or correlation? It's not as clear as you (or they) seem to think.
So you're saying that no tax payers rioted?
No. Have you read the article? The non-historians suggest that tax increases are better because they don't lead to riots. I would suggest that generally people who are already paying taxes don't riot when faced with increases because they understand the consequences.
Would I say that the rioters were laregely made up of people who pay little or no tax? Yes, certainly a disproportionate number of them won't be middle or high rate tax payers. Do you disagree?
0 -
W1 wrote:
They aren't historians.
They haven't "come through" with anything but a badly written article that starts with the word "fact" and then qualifies itself to nothingness.
An academic who studies the past is a historian in my book.
Anyway, I trust their judgement over yours. For sure, we don't have the figures, nor would many people be trained to decipher them, but they're unlikely to put their names to something that is hugely incorrect.
Their stats reflect the correlation. We don't know the stats so we can't dispute them, but their accreditations and background give them credibility.0 -
Sketchley wrote:Sewinman wrote:Sketchley wrote: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.
I already said I thought 100 hours community service would have been about right.
This is my interpretation of the guidelines in this case. First it is Burglary from a premises that is not a dwelling , second value of goods are less than £2000 pounds, the range of sentencing is therefore from a Fine to 26 weeks custody depending on aggravating factors, or in terms of the guidelines degree of harm.
The shop was unprotected having been previously looted, and while there is no evidence accused took part in that looting, this does fall in to the description of "victim is particularly vulnerable" which means according to to the guidelines it was a " serious degree of harm". Which in turn means the upper part of the sentencing range should apply.
So 6 months is spot on as per the guidelines.
Now please can you explain as I have above what you interpretation of the guidelines are that allows you to arrive at 100 hours community services. Other than this is what you think is about right for this offence. I'm sure you would agree that magistrates should not just issue sentences that they feel are about right and should follow the guidelines so please do so yourself and come up with a conclusions and share it.
For the record I too think 6 months does "sound steep" but it is in line with the guidelines.
This is silly discussion - you are challenging me on my subjective interpretation of a fairly loose guideline document where I have picked a sentence which is within the parameters outlined and is not at the bottom end of it. We could argue endlessly about it. This crime does not meet every condition for aggravating circumstances, so does that it mean it does not qualify for the max tarrif? Or maybe it has to meet two of them or three, or maybe not, who knows.
Elsewhere in the document in relation to theft from shops the definition of a vulnerable victim is a 'small independent shop', so extending that definition to burglary then Lidl would not qualify as vulnerable and your sentence would be unfair. We don't know what the definition of vulnerable is in relation to burglary though, so again it is up in the air.
In my opinion 100 community service is more severe than a fine, is less severe than 26 weeks, but is a reasonably severe punishment for a crime that has, in my opinion, some aggravating factors, but not as severe factors as those crimes committed when the shop was originally smashed up. Am I allowed my opinion?0 -
Rick Chasey wrote:W1 wrote:
They aren't historians.
They haven't "come through" with anything but a badly written article that starts with the word "fact" and then qualifies itself to nothingness.
An academic who studies the past is a historian in my book.
Anyway, I trust their judgement over yours. For sure, we don't have the figures, nor would many people be trained to decipher them, but they're unlikely to put their names to something that is hugely incorrect.
Their stats reflect the correlation. We don't know the stats so we can't dispute them, but their accreditations and background give them credibility.
Yes, I'm sure you'd trust the Guardian over pretty much anyone. I wonder if I can find a Daily Mail link for balance?
The way that article is written undermines any credibility it has. The paper that has paid for it diggs it even deeper.0 -
If you could find something in the Telegraph, FT or Times, then you might have a point. Discounting it just because it's in the Guardian is just as blinkered as taking it as gospel.W1 wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:W1 wrote:
They aren't historians.
They haven't "come through" with anything but a badly written article that starts with the word "fact" and then qualifies itself to nothingness.
An academic who studies the past is a historian in my book.
Anyway, I trust their judgement over yours. For sure, we don't have the figures, nor would many people be trained to decipher them, but they're unlikely to put their names to something that is hugely incorrect.
Their stats reflect the correlation. We don't know the stats so we can't dispute them, but their accreditations and background give them credibility.
Yes, I'm sure you'd trust the Guardian over pretty much anyone. I wonder if I can find a Daily Mail link for balance?
The way that article is written undermines any credibility it has. The paper that has paid for it diggs it even deeper.
And it's 'digs' :P1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
It's not like papers to publish academic results that don't support their general line is it?
I think in this case W1, had the academics said the opposite, you'd be gloating about it till the cows came home.
For what it's worth, when I did a little social/economic history (17th and 18th century), we came to similar conclusions - though that was on the way to more interesting conclusions.0 -
Sewinman wrote:Sketchley wrote:Sewinman wrote:Sketchley wrote: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.
I already said I thought 100 hours community service would have been about right.
This is my interpretation of the guidelines in this case. First it is Burglary from a premises that is not a dwelling , second value of goods are less than £2000 pounds, the range of sentencing is therefore from a Fine to 26 weeks custody depending on aggravating factors, or in terms of the guidelines degree of harm.
The shop was unprotected having been previously looted, and while there is no evidence accused took part in that looting, this does fall in to the description of "victim is particularly vulnerable" which means according to to the guidelines it was a " serious degree of harm". Which in turn means the upper part of the sentencing range should apply.
So 6 months is spot on as per the guidelines.
Now please can you explain as I have above what you interpretation of the guidelines are that allows you to arrive at 100 hours community services. Other than this is what you think is about right for this offence. I'm sure you would agree that magistrates should not just issue sentences that they feel are about right and should follow the guidelines so please do so yourself and come up with a conclusions and share it.
For the record I too think 6 months does "sound steep" but it is in line with the guidelines.
This is silly discussion - you are challenging me on my subjective interpretation of a fairly loose guideline document where I have picked a sentence which is within the parameters outlined and is not at the bottom end of it. We could argue endlessly about it. This crime does not meet every condition for aggravating circumstances, so does that it mean it does not qualify for the max tarrif? Or maybe it has to meet two of them or three, or maybe not, who knows.
Elsewhere in the document in relation to theft from shops the definition of a vulnerable victim is a 'small independent shop', so extending that definition to burglary then Lidl would not qualify as vulnerable and your sentence would be unfair. We don't know what the definition of vulnerable is in relation to burglary though, so again it is up in the air.
In my opinion 100 community service is more severe than a fine, is less severe than 26 weeks, but is a reasonably severe punishment for a crime that has, in my opinion, some aggravating factors, but not as severe factors as those crimes committed when the shop was originally smashed up. Am I allowed my opinion?
You are sure are and I endorse it whole heartedly. 100 hrs cso, perhaps a curfew to keep him off the streets between early evening and early morning and he can compensate Lidl for the water if it was not recovered.0 -
Rick Chasey wrote:It's not like papers to publish academic results that don't support their general line is it?
I think in this case W1, had the academics said the opposite, you'd be gloating about it till the cows came home.
Er, exactly. It's hardly a reliable source and it's a crap article. So why you seem to think that it's somehwhat of a concluded point is beyond me. What exactly have they "come through" about except some very dubious inferences?
I wouldn't "gloat" about an article in the Guardian anymore than I'd gloat about one in the Mail.0 -
JZed wrote:MonkeyMonster wrote:this still going?
Surprising isn't it. Seems the chap may well be out of prison by the time it dies a death.
shut it hippyPurveyor of sonic doom
Very Hairy Roadie - FCN 4
Fixed Pista- FCN 5
Beared Bromptonite - FCN 140 -
Do you work for Rupert Murdoch, by any chance? The phone-hacking scandal investigation by The Guardian is already being compared to the Washington Post's Watergate investigation. Left or right, we should all be very grateful The Guardian exists.W1 wrote:I wouldn't "gloat" about an article in the Guardian anymore than I'd gloat about one in the Mail.0 -
W1 wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:It's not like papers to publish academic results that don't support their general line is it?
I think in this case W1, had the academics said the opposite, you'd be gloating about it till the cows came home.
Er, exactly. It's hardly a reliable source and it's a crap article. So why you seem to think that it's somehwhat of a concluded point is beyond me. What exactly have they "come through" about except some very dubious inferences?
I meant come through in the sense that I like to see historians throw their hat into the ring.
We listen to experts on science, but people often don't listen to historians and other professional academics who specialise in social sciences and humanities. I was pleased that there were finally some academic studies on the subject, and that they given their expert opinion. After all, it's their job to study this stuff.
It's a long gripe of mine that everyone listens to a scientist, but everyone think that because they've read a few books they're bona fide historians.0 -
jamesco wrote:
Do you work for Rupert Murdoch, by any chance? The phone-hacking scandal investigation by The Guardian is already being compared to the Washington Post's Watergate investigation. Left or right, we should all be very grateful The Guardian exists.W1 wrote:I wouldn't "gloat" about an article in the Guardian anymore than I'd gloat about one in the Mail.
Indeed. I mean, what else would I line my cat's litter tray with?
The Guardian have an agenda and spin it just as much as the Mail.0
