London and UK riots (started in Tottenham 10:30PM, 6th Aug)

Kev_ps3

k.p.h wrote: »

You reap what you sow , You reap what you sow

Take it to the farming forum

Einhard

Gia Tight Somewhere wrote: »

As for punishing people who weren't involved, well, that's also part of the contract they sign when they get a council house. Perhaps it would be an incentive for the little scumbags not to get involved in riots if they thought their parents/siblings would become homeless. Because up to now, they've been taught that there are absolutely no consequences

So what happens if a young tearaway has 3 or 4 decent siblings, who are trying to do the best for themselves in the circumstances. He gets caught, and they get punished. Hardly fair I would have thought. And what happens when they are evicted? People have rightly stated that social dislocation and unstable domestic environments play a part in such social dysfunction, yet people seek to solve such problems by increasing the instability. Doesn't make much sense to me. I'm all for punishing people for their crimes, and demanding they take responsibility for their actions, but I don't see the point in retributive actions which would only increase the likelihood of crimes in the future.

Einhard

Einhard wrote: »

So what happens if a young tearaway has 3 or 4 decent siblings, who are trying to do the best for themselves in the circumstances. He gets caught, and they get punished. Hardly fair I would have thought. And what happens when they are evicted? People have rightly stated that social dislocation and unstable domestic environments play a part in such social dysfunction, yet people seek to solve such problems by increasing the instability. Doesn't make much sense to me. I'm all for punishing people for their crimes, and demanding they take responsibility for their actions, but I don't see the point in retributive actions which would only increase the likelihood of crimes in the future.

Well, that's why I said these evictions are unlikely to happen, bar a few cases being used as an example. As I said, the fear of the entire family being evicted might well be enough to stop a lot of youths offending. Actions like this are designed to make people see council housing as the privilege it is instead of something to be destroyed and taken for granted. As another poster said, people don't respect things they get for free and my experience of living in a council block in London confirmed that for me.

I'm just tired of this 'everyone is against us' argument. I just watched a documentary on the riots where some looters were interviewed and it really p*ssed me off. Predictably, they complained about how 'the government' only cared about rich people who work in Canary Wharf and how it's so unfair that rich people can buy what they want. Completely missing the point that the vast majority of these people are normal people working for their money. And working hard. And funding the council houses and benefits for these people who throw everything back in their faces.

They kept repeating 'there's nothing to do around here' (yeah, sure there's nothing to do for free/cheap in London :rolleyes:) and when the reporter asked why they expected other people to entertain them, they couldn't answer. When the reporter asked why they didn't go out there and make their own luck, they couldn't answer. Isn't it strange that I know dozens of people from Colombia, Vietnam, Brazil etc who come over here barely speaking a word of English and they all manage to find jobs in restaurants and yet these 'victims' from Lewisham and Hackney claim there's no work anywhere? Isn't it odd that I work for a company offering free and cheap evening/day courses in all kinds of subjects, an opportunity not available to most people in the world, and the only people who attend them are middle class stay at home mums and recent immigrants? Do you want to know why the majority of the looters are not working or in education? Because THEY CAN'T BE FCKING BOTHERED. It's so much easier to sit in the park smoking weed all day, take your handouts and then complain that the taxpayer isn't actually wiping your arse for you.

Einhard

Gia Tight Somewhere wrote: »

Well, that's why I said these evictions are unlikely to happen, bar a few cases being used as an example. As I said, the fear of the entire family being evicted might well be enough to stop a lot of youths offending. Actions like this are designed to make people see council housing as the privilege it is instead of something to be destroyed and taken for granted. As another poster said, people don't respect things they get for free and my experience of living in a council block in London confirmed that for me.

I'm just tired of this 'everyone is against us' argument. I just watched a documentary on the riots where some looters were interviewed and it really p*ssed me off. Predictably, they complained about how 'the government' only cared about rich people who work in Canary Wharf and how it's so unfair that rich people can buy what they want. Completely missing the point that the vast majority of these people are normal people working for their money. And working hard. And funding the council houses and benefits for these people who throw everything back in their faces.

They kept repeating 'there's nothing to do around here' (yeah, sure there's nothing to do for free/cheap in London :rolleyes:) and when the reporter asked why they expected other people to entertain them, they couldn't answer. When the reporter asked why they didn't go out there and make their own luck, they couldn't answer. Isn't it strange that I know dozens of people from Colombia, Vietnam, Brazil etc who come over here barely speaking a word of English and they all manage to find jobs in restaurants and yet these 'victims' from Lewisham and Hackney claim there's no work anywhere? Isn't it odd that I work for a company offering free and cheap evening/day courses in all kinds of subjects, an opportunity not available to most people in the world, and the only people who attend them are middle class stay at home mums and recent immigrants? Do you want to know why the majority of the looters are not working or in education? Because THEY CAN'T BE FCKING BOTHERED. It's so much easier to sit in the park smoking weed all day, take your handouts and then complain that the taxpayer isn't actually wiping your arse for you.

I agree with all of that, but I don't see how the problems can be remedied by throwing people out of their homes. Perhaps one or two people as an example, but even then, I can't see the delinquent thug changing hsi ways because he's evicted. Indeed, with no home to fall back on, I'd hazard that he'll become more delinquent and scirnful of the law and society.

I think people are angry at the yobs who rampaged through the streets, and are even more angry at the softly softly approach to them, which seeks to place the responsibility for their crimes on the rest of society, but seeking to exorcise that anger through such punishments does nothing IMO to remedy the situation, and avoid such situations arising again, which is surely the most important thing.

Monty Burnz

Einhard wrote: »

I agree with all of that, but I don't see how the problems can be remedied by throwing people out of their homes. Perhaps one or two people as an example, but even then, I can't see the delinquent thug changing hsi ways because he's evicted. Indeed, with no home to fall back on, I'd hazard that he'll become more delinquent and scirnful of the law and society.

I think people are angry at the yobs who rampaged through the streets, and are even more angry at the softly softly approach to them, which seeks to place the responsibility for their crimes on the rest of society, but seeking to exorcise that anger through such punishments does nothing IMO to remedy the situation, and avoid such situations arising again, which is surely the most important thing.

It may be that such a move has come to late: if they took this approach 25 years ago, making it clear that not caring for your children and allowing them grow up essentially feral has real consequences for the parents, then perhaps we'd have a much smaller delinquent population today.

isabella_24

I cant believe the devastation and distruction they have inflicted on their own country. I was constantly cringing watching sky news. We all know that sometimes life can be harder for people in disadvantaged areas but why not better yourself instead of lowering yourself. And im not writing this from my million dollar mansion either, I come from an extremely poor community where having milk and bread was a luxury, i lived in a flat complex were gangstars were and are still to this day 10 a penny, but i decided that was not the life for me and when old enough ran in the opposite direction. I didnt have anyone holding my hand, i made that choice. I'm not rich either but I most definatly wouldnt trash my own area just to steal a pair of jeans and a lacoste top!!! And if these people are only stealing to supply there family with food which i doubt why didnt they loot tesco's for food and save themselves having to carry all those heavy flatscreen TV's.
People have to stop putting all the responsibility onto the government, it is the people who make the choices and hold there lives in their hands.
While saying that i do think there should be more support from the government for people who wish to go back to education. Especially single mothers and fathers.

Samich

it's great that the riots have finished, it's crazy to think that it was england, people roaming the streets, breaking into places. It's something like you'd hear in the middle east. Crazy.

Killer Pigeon

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X_YxLhCByxE

pragmatic1

Einhard wrote: »

So what happens if a young tearaway has 3 or 4 decent siblings, who are trying to do the best for themselves in the circumstances. He gets caught, and they get punished. Hardly fair I would have thought. And what happens when they are evicted? People have rightly stated that social dislocation and unstable domestic environments play a part in such social dysfunction, yet people seek to solve such problems by increasing the instability. Doesn't make much sense to me. I'm all for punishing people for their crimes, and demanding they take responsibility for their actions, but I don't see the point in retributive actions which would only increase the likelihood of crimes in the future.

Then we'll just have to kill them.

Morlar

isabella_24 wrote: »

I cant believe the devastation and distruction they have inflicted on their own country. I was constantly cringing watching sky news. We all know that sometimes life can be harder for people in disadvantaged areas but why not better yourself instead of lowering yourself. And im not writing this from my million dollar mansion either, I come from an extremely poor community where having milk and bread was a luxury, i lived in a flat complex were gangstars were and are still to this day 10 a penny, but i decided that was not the life for me and when old enough ran in the opposite direction. I didnt have anyone holding my hand, i made that choice. I'm not rich either but I most definatly wouldnt trash my own area just to steal a pair of jeans and a lacoste top!!! And if these people are only stealing to supply there family with food which i doubt why didnt they loot tesco's for food and save themselves having to carry all those heavy flatscreen TV's.
People have to stop putting all the responsibility onto the government, it is the people who make the choices and hold there lives in their hands.
While saying that i do think there should be more support from the government for people who wish to go back to education. Especially single mothers and fathers.

Could not agree more!

Lollipops23

Was just reading an article about the mother of the guy who's gotten his family evicted from their council flat- she's giving out saying he and his girlfriend were in the wrong place/wrong time etc. How thick is she for gods sake?? First she raises him to be a little thug and then she gives out that the police were wrong to punish him? Easy to see where it all went wrong IMO....

Doge

Samich wrote: »

it's great that the riots have finished, it's crazy to think that it was england, people roaming the streets, breaking into places. It's something like you'd hear in the middle east. Crazy.

But let's not forget, it happened a few times before in England,

and also happened in Vancouver this year.

goat2

Predalien wrote: »

I fully expect any eviction orders applied to parents to be rejected by judges, completely disproportionate response.

not a hope, i hope that they toss out the lot, because they have to start somewhere, have to stop the rot, there are decent living people living in council estates, whose lives are uncomfortable by the likes of these skangers, and if the troublemakers thought that they were going to lose the roof over their heads and be the cause of losing roof over mammy, daddy,s head then they might think first, because then the parents may kick butt, and remind their dear troublesome offsprings to behave themselves, as they clearly have not been well controlled, at least it will give the law something to barter with

davoxx

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-14589259

that has got to be a tad bit mad right? for accepting stolen shorts?

what does that say about the judge and his ability to judge fairly?

InTheTrees

davoxx wrote: »

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-14589259

that has got to be a tad bit mad right? for accepting stolen shorts?

what does that say about the judge and his ability to judge fairly?

Sounds reasonable. It was a little unfair and she appealed and got the sentence reduced. End of story.

The brit public want Revenge now. And they want to make sure the aftermath is remembered. The response to the looters has to be severe and be a future deterrent so the sentences are going to be as harsh as possible.

So Shorts-lady knew what she was doing was wrong, and people in similar circumstances in the future might just think twice before doing what she did.

Sonics2k

goat2 wrote: »

not a hope, i hope that they toss out the lot, because they have to start somewhere, have to stop the rot, there are decent living people living in council estates, whose lives are uncomfortable by the likes of these skangers, and if the troublemakers thought that they were going to lose the roof over their heads and be the cause of losing roof over mammy, daddy,s head then they might think first, because then the parents may kick butt, and remind their dear troublesome offsprings to behave themselves, as they clearly have not been well controlled, at least it will give the law something to barter with

That's right. Making people's parents homeless is a great way to solve the problem and stop them taking their anger out on society.

Morlar

Sonics2k wrote: »

Making people's parents homeless is a great way to solve the problem and stop them taking their anger out on society.

Keep your offspring from looting and rioting & you wont have to worry about the council deciding to stop providing you with free housing.

Sonics2k

Morlar wrote: »

Keep your offspring from looting and rioting & you wont have to worry about the council deciding to stop providing you with free housing.

So, making them homeless will solve the problem.

I see.

Morlar

To change future behaviour there has to be meaningful consequences. This is one example, another would be the USA deporting Irish students who illegally alter their passports. They won't do that again and future students will think twice before getting into that habit now that they are aware there are actual consequences. In this case why should law abiding council tenants be stuck with neighbours like that ? Councils already do this for drug dealing and anti-social behaviour, this is just an extension of that.

getz

Morlar wrote: »

Keep your offspring from looting and rioting & you wont have to worry about the council deciding to stop providing you with free housing.

you know what happens when they are kicked out of the council house ?well they just go to the next area and the local council under the law of the land, has to find a place for them to live,just like any other homeless family, usualy they are put up in hotels,untill more permament accommodation is found for them,often a nicer place that they were kicked out of

Morlar

getz wrote: »

you know what happens when they are kicked out of the council house ?well they just go to the next area and the local council under the law of the land, has to find a place for them to live,just like any other homeless family, usualy they are put up in hotels,untill more permament accommodation is found for them,often a nicer place that they were kicked out of

The point is they will be more likely to think twice about it if there are consequences rather than if there are no consequences.

davoxx

InTheTrees wrote: »

Sounds reasonable. It was a little unfair and she appealed and got the sentence reduced. End of story.

The brit public want Revenge now. And they want to make sure the aftermath is remembered. The response to the looters has to be severe and be a future deterrent so the sentences are going to be as harsh as possible.

So Shorts-lady knew what she was doing was wrong, and people in similar circumstances in the future might just think twice before doing what she did.

the judges are not there for revenge, they are there to be fair, if he can't keep his feelings out of this, he has failed to do his job and abused his position of power. he needs to be retrained so.

she should have never gone to jail over a pair of shorts, community service is the correct option, and it should have been used in the first instance.

judges need to sort out the time being proportional to the crime, and not go with public opinion.

getz

Morlar wrote: »

The point is they will be more likely to think twice about it if there are consequences rather than if there are no consequences.

you would think so wouldent you,but we are not [all the time ]talking about people who care,

Morlar

getz wrote: »

you would think so wouldent you,but we are not [all the time ]talking about people who care,

Given the choices of
a) consequences
or
b) no consequences

in terms of changing future behaviour, my vote would still be for option a).

getz

Morlar wrote: »

Given the choices of
a) consequences
or
b) no consequences

in terms of changing future behaviour, my vote would still be for option a).

imagine,OK son we are living in a hell hole,go and kick in a few shop windows,then we can be kicked out and get our selves a better place to live.

Morlar

getz wrote: »

imagine,OK son we are living in a hell hole,go and kick in a few shop windows,then we can be kicked out and get our selves a better place to live.

I think you would have to balance the extremely minimal chances of that happening compared to the overwhelming chances of it having the desired effect.

Not forgetting that in this scenario the son would have been duped into getting himself a prison term and permanent criminal record, if that were to come out in court the parent would then directly end up in prison too. In addition to the hassle of being moved out of their home to another where it'd be a total gamble that it may or may not be in a better area.

tfitzgerald

A friend of mine living in London broke into argos last week during the riots , he got away with 500 catalogues if any one wants one let me know:)

Sonics2k

Morlar wrote: »

I think you would have to balance the extremely minimal chances of that happening compared to the overwhelming chances of it having the desired effect.

Not forgetting that in this scenario the son would have been duped into getting himself a prison term and permanent criminal record, if that were to come out in court the parent would then directly end up in prison too. In addition to the hassle of being moved out of their home to another where it'd be a total gamble that it may or may not be in a better area.

And tell me, should this only affect the lower classes?

What about when David Cameron and his friends ran around Oxford as young men and trashed the town. Should his parent's also be punished?

Because that same gang is still going, just with new young men but of the same financial background.

Morlar

Sonics2k wrote: »

And tell me, should this only affect the lower classes?

What about when David Cameron and his friends ran around Oxford as young men and trashed the town. Should his parent's also be punished?

Because that same gang is still going, just with new young men but of the same financial background.

This is not a 'class' issue, it's a crime issue. If David Cameron as a young man had rioted and looted, and his parents were in receipt of free council housing, - then in that scenario the answer to that question would be yes.

If they are not availing of free council housing then it's not an issue. Anyone regardless of 'class' availing of free council housing should be aware that it's a two way thing, you are entitled to housing, you also have concurrent responsibiities to your neighbours who are entitled to not live next door to rioting/looting criminals.

btw Why are we going off the rails with these outlandish scenarios ? It all seems straightforward to me for the vast majority of the cases likely to be effected by this.

Tubsandtiles

tfitzgerald wrote: »

A friend of mine living in London broke into argos last week during the riots , he got away with 500 catalogues if any one wants one let me know:)

They're free anyway ?