kingantti1874 Posted August 18, 2011 Share Posted August 18, 2011 it wont make a blind bit of difference. so you sont think people will think twice about organising riots / violence on faceboook, twitter or BBM - knowing they are very likley to find themselves in the slammer for 4 years... you dont think they are intelligent enough to think maybe that ?20 dvd player isnt worth the risk, or the adidas hat?... do me a favour .. of course some people will always take the risk, but it will definately put off those around the finges who i hope represent the majority Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dusk_Till_Dawn Posted August 18, 2011 Share Posted August 18, 2011 Strict / Swift sentencing (in the view of senior people within the judiciary) has been accepted as the most effective way to demonstrate this. It certainly seemed to work with the Bradford riots. The sentencing after that was brutal and people there haven't forgotten Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dusk_Till_Dawn Posted August 18, 2011 Share Posted August 18, 2011 It certainly seemed to work with the Bradford riots. The sentencing after that was brutal and people there haven't forgotten From wiki: There were 297 arrests in total; 200 jail sentences totalling 604 years were handed down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kingantti1874 Posted August 18, 2011 Share Posted August 18, 2011 From wiki: There were 297 arrests in total; 200 jail sentences totalling 604 years were handed down. how many riots have there been since? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bistokid Posted August 18, 2011 Share Posted August 18, 2011 Sometimes a clear message has to be sent out as to what is and is not acceptable in a free society - I think that the sentences handed out to the two numb skulls reflects this and should act as a deterrent to others who may be tempted to go down the same road. Harsh it is - but harsh it had to be. It's not really free though is it? Not if you're getting 4 years for posting something on Facebook. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kingantti1874 Posted August 18, 2011 Share Posted August 18, 2011 It's not really free though is it? Not if you're getting 4 years for posting something on Facebook. missing the point entirely, what they did was very similar to inciting terrorism - for the many people who had their lives detroyed the outcome has been the same.... would you suggest people who try to organise terrorist attacks are also dealt with leniently, the fact that it was on facebook doesnt make it any less serious... it only means they to go along with everything else they are extrememly stupid. im seriously fed up discussing this now - next time you can all run a minibus down to harangey and try and talk them out of it - give them a cuddle and offer some counselling, we will all sleep better knowing the JKB giveahoodieahug patrol are on the case.... god help us!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2NaFish Posted August 18, 2011 Share Posted August 18, 2011 so you sont think people will think twice about organising riots / violence on faceboook, twitter or BBM - knowing they are very likley to find themselves in the slammer for 4 years... you dont think they are intelligent enough to think maybe that ?20 dvd player isnt worth the risk, or the adidas hat?... do me a favour .. of course some people will always take the risk, but it will definately put off those around the finges who i hope represent the majority nope. people are short minded idiots. as are the politicians who advocate this and the general public who back it. I've a friend who is writing their phd on riots; punishment plays next to no difference in the recurrence rate when social conditions don't improve. Our society will be no different. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kingantti1874 Posted August 18, 2011 Share Posted August 18, 2011 nope. people are short minded idiots. as are the politicians who advocate this and the general public who back it. I've a friend who is writing their phd on riots; punishment plays next to no difference in the recurrence rate when social conditions don't improve. Our society will be no different. well we will see how many riots happen in future and how many organised using the technologies discussed, im willing to bet you waont see scenes like those again any time soon...ergo it will and alreqady has worked. - at no point have i said that social considitons do not need to be improved, of course the underlying reasons need to be looked at and addressed... but thats another discussion entirely Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2NaFish Posted August 18, 2011 Share Posted August 18, 2011 well we will see how many riots happen in future and how many organised using the technologies discussed, im willing to bet you waont see scenes like those again any time soon...ergo it will and alreqady has worked. that's pretty specious reasoning. it assumes there'll be no more riots, which seems unlikely. It also assumes that were there to be no more riots it would be primarily due to harsh sentences. www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post_hoc_ergo_propter_hoc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patrick Bateman Posted August 18, 2011 Share Posted August 18, 2011 Patrick - your knowledge of the law extends how far?, sorry mate but if your in 4th year at uni your barely out of school, you know I have a masters in civil engineering from glasow but guess what, uni counts for shit in re real world I think you need to go ask the big boys at uni what mockery means, I can assure you if your trying to mock people your failing badly. Also you've managed to successfully avoid all pertinent points.. I wonder if your run of the mill norwegian, look forward to the prospect of giving Anders Breivig a light sentence Following his escapades.. Not that it matters, but this isn't my first degree, I left school some years ago and I have never been described as 'naive' by anyone. I have lived and worked 'in the real world' and, as I have said before, I'd say the knowledge imparted by my legal friends and relations, along with my current degree, provides me with a more qualified opinion than those who have absolutely no knowledge of the justice system whatsoever. That's not a claim that I am all knowing, as much as people are desperate to see it that way. I'll listen to the evidence, and from what I've heard and seen; anyone who is qualified or experienced in legal matters has said this brings the English justice system into disrepute. As for your point about Norway; much has been made about their 21 year sentences. That is the maximum that can be imposed, but at the end of that 21 year period, they have a reassessment and Breivik could be sent back for another 21 years quite easily. Their justice system results in very low rates of re-offending, surely that's just as, if not more than, important than simply keeping people from the streets before they are released again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kingantti1874 Posted August 18, 2011 Share Posted August 18, 2011 that's pretty specious reasoning. it assumes there'll be no more riots, which seems unlikely. It also assumes that were there to be no more riots it would be primarily due to harsh sentences. www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post_hoc_ergo_propter_hoc i assume there will be no more riots of the same significance, or if there are they will be far smaller due to the removal of the ability to communicate an organise effecively on the fly using BBM etc. and as per my previous posts in this and other threads would say strict sentencing, tougher policing will be at least in part responsible for that reduction, along with other factors now in place. anyway - ive had my saymore than enough times... and i need to shift my energies to tonight so im off Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Doctor Posted August 18, 2011 Share Posted August 18, 2011 the goverment and "QUALIFIED" senior judges within the british legal system have deemed it appropriate to make an example, If you think the QUALIFIED senior judges had as much to do with deciding these sentences as the government you're fooling yourself. The government have no business in deciding on sentencing, how many MPs have we seen being sentenced over the expenses scandal in the past year or so? Don't you understand what a dangerous precedent you set when you allow governments to influence the judicial system and sentencing in particular? You are running head first into a fascist state with your eyes closed and your fingers in your ears. These ridiculous sentences are being handed down to make David Cameron look as if he's tough and decisive at a time when, because of police budget cuts, he could be seen as being weak on crime. And the short sighted British bourgeoisie lap it up. (Damn, I sound like a Marxist now, I'm not a Marxist. I voted Tory in the Scottish elections earlier this year! (second vote though..)) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rossthejambo Posted August 18, 2011 Share Posted August 18, 2011 If you think the QUALIFIED senior judges had as much to do with deciding these sentences as the government you're fooling yourself. The government have no business in deciding on sentencing, how many MPs have we seen being sentenced over the expenses scandal in the past year or so? Don't you understand what a dangerous precedent you set when you allow governments to influence the judicial system and sentencing in particular? You are running head first into a fascist state with your eyes closed and your fingers in your ears. These ridiculous sentences are being handed down to make David Cameron look as if he's tough and decisive at a time when, because of police budget cuts, he could be seen as being weak on crime. And the short sighted British bourgeoisie lap it up. (Damn, I sound like a Marxist now, I'm not a Marxist. I voted Tory in the Scottish elections earlier this year! (second vote though..)) Another good post Doctor, found it very difficult to disagree with anything you've said until that little add on at the end. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bistokid Posted August 18, 2011 Share Posted August 18, 2011 missing the point entirely, what they did was very similar to inciting terrorism - for the many people who had their lives detroyed the outcome has been the same.... would you suggest people who try to organise terrorist attacks are also dealt with leniently, the fact that it was on facebook doesnt make it any less serious... it only means they to go along with everything else they are extrememly stupid. im seriously fed up discussing this now - next time you can all run a minibus down to harangey and try and talk them out of it - give them a cuddle and offer some counselling, we will all sleep better knowing the JKB giveahoodieahug patrol are on the case.... god help us!! I'd say it's pretty much fundamental to the point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kingantti1874 Posted August 18, 2011 Share Posted August 18, 2011 If you think the QUALIFIED senior judges had as much to do with deciding these sentences as the government you're fooling yourself. The government have no business in deciding on sentencing, how many MPs have we seen being sentenced over the expenses scandal in the past year or so? Don't you understand what a dangerous precedent you set when you allow governments to influence the judicial system and sentencing in particular? You are running head first into a fascist state with your eyes closed and your fingers in your ears. These ridiculous sentences are being handed down to make David Cameron look as if he's tough and decisive at a time when, because of police budget cuts, he could be seen as being weak on crime. And the short sighted British bourgeoisie lap it up. (Damn, I sound like a Marxist now, I'm not a Marxist. I voted Tory in the Scottish elections earlier this year! (second vote though..)) 1. You think all judges have been influenced en masse, you think none of the qualified judges believe that this is the correct course of action? have i stumbled into one of maroonlegions conspiracy threads? sometimes the simplest theory is the best http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_razor 2. The MP point is again another debate - MP's should be setting an example and if they havent, should be punished accordingly with prison terms for the most serious offences. 3. Riots of this nature, pure criminality, theft and anarchy was an unprecedented event in this country, in response a precedent had to be set - you have one of 2 choices - you either set a legal precedent to demonstrate how this will be addressed in the future or a precedent that does not immediately deter huge swathes of the population from running amok... take your choice 4. Im no tory or fan of David Cameron - bu again in this particular scenario, tough and decisive leadership was / is exactly what was needed to bring a sense of stability back to the UK. Whether it scores political points is secondary to me. anyway - given that i cant stop biting on this thread i wont even be looking at it again - ive really have rambled enough... im off to dream about a bourgeoisie super state. Think a few of you guys should start a politicl party advocating the economic and social design proposed by michael albert. if successful, maybe in a hundered years or so we wont have to engage in this sort of debate Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnjl Posted August 18, 2011 Share Posted August 18, 2011 "Good people of britain 1 Scum of britain 0" Outstanding stuff by iluv. Justice needs to be just, there is nothing just about these sentences. The government needs to rise above public outcry and not interfere with the courts IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deevers Posted August 18, 2011 Share Posted August 18, 2011 It's not really free though is it? Not if you're getting 4 years for posting something on Facebook. Well that's the price you have to pay for being a would be organiser of riots. I'll bet they'll think twice about doing that again!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snake Plissken Posted August 18, 2011 Share Posted August 18, 2011 Well that's the price you have to pay for being a would be organiser of riots. I'll bet they'll think twice about doing that again!! ?Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.? Benjamin Franklin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deevers Posted August 18, 2011 Share Posted August 18, 2011 ?Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.? Benjamin Franklin Tell that to the relatives of those murdered during the riots. See what they think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dusk_Till_Dawn Posted August 19, 2011 Share Posted August 19, 2011 Tell that to the relatives of those murdered during the riots. See what they think. Perhaps we can bring the Menezes and Tomlinson families into the debate too Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deevers Posted August 19, 2011 Share Posted August 19, 2011 Perhaps we can bring the Menezes and Tomlinson families into the debate too Really - I didn't think that this debate has anything to do with either - I thought that we were speaking about punishment for people inciting rioting - not those killed by the police. The five deaths I was alluding to were caused by rioting mobs. You seem to be defending those who want to cause even more mayhem and possibly even more deaths. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rossthejambo Posted August 19, 2011 Share Posted August 19, 2011 Tell that to the relatives of those murdered during the riots. See what they think. Were they killed in the riots that those 2 were charged with inciting? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snake Plissken Posted August 19, 2011 Share Posted August 19, 2011 Tell that to the relatives of those murdered during the riots. See what they think. Most of the responses I've read have been quietly dignified, no calls for revenge or retribution here, just a call for those responsible to be brought to justice. That doesn't include a couple of idiots on Facebook no matter how much you try to imply it. http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/aug/10/birmingham-riots-anger-deaths Using emotive arguments to justify a viewpoint exposes its weakness, you resort to such measures as your points don't stand up to the scrutiny of cold logic which is why I reject them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deevers Posted August 19, 2011 Share Posted August 19, 2011 Most of the responses I've read have been quietly dignified, no calls for revenge or retribution here, just a call for those responsible to be brought to justice. That doesn't include a couple of idiots on Facebook no matter how much you try to imply it. http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/aug/10/birmingham-riots-anger-deaths Using emotive arguments to justify a viewpoint exposes its weakness, you resort to such measures as your points don't stand up to the scrutiny of cold logic which is why I reject them. Really! I don't see why people should not be emotive about the events that unfolded in London, Birmingham and else where. Being emotive strikes me as being quite a human quality. Seeing everything through "cold logic" always makes me think of the mantra of other regimes. I'm sure that both Hydrich and Himmler used that particular theme as there way of looking at problems - and thereby from my particular point of view that's where "cold logic" fails. The only point I have been seeking to make in all of this is that the two clowns who decided to try and stoke the fires (excuse the pun) with the Facebook nonsense brought retribution on themselves. It is harsh - but the punishment has to be seen in the context of what has occurred. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snake Plissken Posted August 19, 2011 Share Posted August 19, 2011 Really! I don't see why people should not be emotive about the events that unfolded in London, Birmingham and else where. Being emotive strikes me as being quite a human quality. Seeing everything through "cold logic" always makes me think of the mantra of other regimes. I'm sure that both Hydrich and Himmler used that particular theme as there way of looking at problems - and thereby from my particular point of view that's where "cold logic" fails. The only point I have been seeking to make in all of this is that the two clowns who decided to try and stoke the fires (excuse the pun) with the Facebook nonsense brought retribution on themselves. It is harsh - but the punishment has to be seen in the context of what has occurred. I'm referring to the cold logic that the law must show in dealing with such cases, the law should not be influenced by events that are taking place and only deal with the facts. In normal circumstances you would never expect to be jailed for writing on a social networking site, what they did was stupid but retribution is not justice. It's very strange you would use the Nazis to try to back up your argument, once again trying to use emotion rather than reason, because you fail to see that the jail sentence is fascistic. You should think a little more carefully in the examples you use as this just undermines what you're trying to say and if you can't see that, it is futile to attempt to reason with you further. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kingantti1874 Posted August 19, 2011 Share Posted August 19, 2011 I'm referring to the cold logic that the law must show in dealing with such cases, the law should not be influenced by events that are taking place and only deal with the facts. In normal circumstances you would never expect to be jailed for writing on a social networking site, what they did was stupid but retribution is not justice. It's very strange you would use the Nazis to try to back up your argument, once again trying to use emotion rather than reason, because you fail to see that the jail sentence is fascistic. You should think a little more carefully in the examples you use as this just undermines what you're trying to say and if you can't see that, it is futile to attempt to reason with you further. would you be jailed for inciting / encouraging / organising terrorist acts on the internet teenwolf ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deevers Posted August 19, 2011 Share Posted August 19, 2011 I'm referring to the cold logic that the law must show in dealing with such cases, the law should not be influenced by events that are taking place and only deal with the facts. In normal circumstances you would never expect to be jailed for writing on a social networking site, what they did was stupid but retribution is not justice. It's very strange you would use the Nazis to try to back up your argument, once again trying to use emotion rather than reason, because you fail to see that the jail sentence is fascistic. You should think a little more carefully in the examples you use as this just undermines what you're trying to say and if you can't see that, it is futile to attempt to reason with you further. Excellent another browbeaten liberal bites the dust! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
djf Posted August 19, 2011 Share Posted August 19, 2011 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
milky_26 Posted August 19, 2011 Share Posted August 19, 2011 appeal judge reduces sentence of woman who accepted looted shorts from 5 months to voluntary work My link Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dusk_Till_Dawn Posted August 20, 2011 Share Posted August 20, 2011 Really - I didn't think that this debate has anything to do with either - I thought that we were speaking about punishment for people inciting rioting - not those killed by the police. I was referring to teenwolf's post about freedom and security. The menezes and Tomlinson cases are examples of why the police should have no more power or freedom to take liberties than they do already. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kingantti1874 Posted August 20, 2011 Share Posted August 20, 2011 I was referring to teenwolf's post about freedom and security. The menezes and Tomlinson cases are examples of why the police should have no more power or freedom to take liberties than they do already. Tomlinson was pushed over for **** sake, when he was somewhere he should not have been... An down tell me he was on his way home... Proven he had been in an around the frontline of the riots for 2hrs before he was pushed. And menezes - put yourselves in the policeman shoes... Tragedy no doubt but absolutely with the best intention of sparing life... Honestly what would you have done? 98% certain, guy running away, high alert after 7:7 running to get on a busy commuter train full of families... What you don't hear about as often are the many many occasions when the police make snap decisions and get it spot on... Thank god we have people willing to put themselves in harms way Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dusk_Till_Dawn Posted August 20, 2011 Share Posted August 20, 2011 The polis are paid - and paid well - to get it right. I'm not being flippant about that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deevers Posted August 20, 2011 Share Posted August 20, 2011 The polis are paid - and paid well - to get it right. I'm not being flippant about that. There speaks the voice of someone who has obviously never had to make a life or death decision in a split second. In these circumstances, what someone is paid or not paid, really does not enter into it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dusk_Till_Dawn Posted August 20, 2011 Share Posted August 20, 2011 There speaks the voice of someone who has obviously never had to make a life or death decision in a split second. In these circumstances, what someone is paid or not paid, really does not enter into it. Of course I've never made a decision like that and nor would I want to, which is why I'm not a copper - and why i don't get their pay, their pension or their early retirement age. Nor do squadies, who are in a more serious firing line and aren't generally asked to fight unarmed people Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deevers Posted August 20, 2011 Share Posted August 20, 2011 Of course I've never made a decision like that and nor would I want to, which is why I'm not a copper - and why i don't get their pay, their pension or their early retirement age. Nor do squadies, who are in a more serious firing line and aren't generally asked to fight unarmed people But of course you just like to snipe from the sindelines! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dusk_Till_Dawn Posted August 21, 2011 Share Posted August 21, 2011 But of course you just like to snipe from the sindelines! Well the police are paid with public money so I guess we're allowed our say when they shoot an innocent brazilian electrician seven times in the head Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cabbie754 Posted August 21, 2011 Share Posted August 21, 2011 It does seem a bit of an over reaction from the authorities but inciting a riot is quite a serious offence even if it just on Facebook. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.