chem1st Posted August 18, 2011 Share Posted August 18, 2011 didnt a lot hold their hands up and give the money back....thus saving themselves punishment.... Sounds like the Bullingdon club. Perhaps I could save up £80 to commonly assault the person whom burgled me? I like THEIR law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
banjodeano Posted August 18, 2011 Share Posted August 18, 2011 The courts are noting the exceptional nature of the context of the offences, and sentancing accordingly. Only a druling retard would think that nicking x in the commision of violent riot is the same as nicking x by shoving it up your jumper in dixons. Both are serious offences, the riot bit making it a much more serious offence and the punishment must reflect that. Do you have a problem with the rioters being punished? i aint got a problem at all, but everyone should be treated the same...fair is fair... i must be one of those druling retards that you talk about then... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeadingNorth Posted August 18, 2011 Share Posted August 18, 2011 i aint got a problem at all, but everyone should be treated the same...fair is fair... In theory, yes they should. The circumstances surrounding an offence should always be taken into account in every case; they certainly are being for these cases. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chem1st Posted August 18, 2011 Share Posted August 18, 2011 The courts are noting the exceptional nature of the context of the offences, and sentancing accordingly. Only a druling retard would think that nicking x in the commision of violent riot is the same as nicking x by shoving it up your jumper in dixons. Both are serious offences, the riot bit making it a much more serious offence and the punishment must reflect that. Do you have a problem with the rioters being punished? I think the corruption in our parliament exposed by the expenses scandal was of a very exceptional nature! And it is far more serious than looting a bag of rice when your local shops have been razed to the ground! http://brit-asian.com/2011/09/08/flicks-london-riot-looters-steal-basmati-rice/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andygardener Posted August 18, 2011 Share Posted August 18, 2011 i aint got a problem at all, but everyone should be treated the same...fair is fair... i must be one of those druling retards that you talk about then... Fair is indeed fair, crimes committed in the commision of riot are dealt with harsher than crimes not committed in the commision of riot. Not a hard concept to understand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
donkey Posted August 18, 2011 Share Posted August 18, 2011 No they're not. The government haven't said person a or person b must get 4 years etc. Our elected representatives have rightly conveyed the disgust of the british people at the rioters and our desire they suffer suitable punishment for their crimes. I worry about anyone whose concern is that the scum who laid waste to communities didn't get the expected slap on the wrist rather than the famillies of those murdered in the riots, the people made homeless by the riots and the businesses and employees put on the dole by the riots. They are the victims, not the amoral arsonist looting scum who the guardianistas are now claiming are the "real victims". You think anyone likes being the victim of crime? Please post some examples of all these many people who are claiming the rioters are the victims? It is way more complex than that, but don't let that stop you making sweeping generalisations about everyone who doesn't take the official Richard Littlejohn line. Pointing out that the rot goes further than the street criminals and that the politicians are being hypocrites in adopting such a tone of moral outrage when they are so tainted themselves is not the same as apologising for or excusing the riots. As for being 'our elected representatives,' they certainly don't represent me, and if you still believe there is something democratic about the way power and wealth is relentlessly being concentrated into the hands of a social elite, and that they represent you, then you must have been reading too many Murdoch publications. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
banjodeano Posted August 18, 2011 Share Posted August 18, 2011 Fair is indeed fair, crimes committed in the commision of riot are dealt with harsher than crimes not committed in the commision of riot. Not a hard concept to understand. Oh...its not that i dont understand...i understand more than you know....i just have a problem with it because its just political...and while your talking about druling retards...you are also including the MP's who have been democratically elected and are also voicing their concerns over this sham... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quinnwok Posted August 18, 2011 Share Posted August 18, 2011 Is the Government GUILTY of sub judice in the wake of the rioters being arrested, charged, warrented or summoned to court, by getting involved or making comment on the courts process, regarding the severity of the sentencings the Courts should dish out, and the media then reporting on such comments? In law, sub judice, Latin for "under judgment", means that a particular case or matter is currently under trial or being considered by a judge or court. The term may be used synonymously with "the present case" or "the case at bar" by some lawyers. In England and Wales, Ireland,New Zealand, Australia, India, Pakistan, Canada, Sri Lanka, and Israel it is generally considered inappropriate to comment publicly on cases sub judice, which can be an offence in itself, leading to contempt of court proceedings. This is particularly true in criminal cases, where publicly discussing cases sub judice may constitute interference with due process. In English law, the term was correctly used to describe material which would prejudice court proceedings by publication before 1981. Sub judice is now irrelevant to journalists because of the introduction of the Contempt of Court Act 1981. Under Section 2 of the Act, a substantial risk of serious prejudice can only be created by a media report when proceedings are active. Proceedings become active when there's an arrest, oral charge, issue of a warrant, or a summons. who cares? as long as they are behind bars. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank Sidney Posted August 18, 2011 Share Posted August 18, 2011 Yes its a big stitch up. If someone can get a longer prison sentence for pinching a pair of trainers compared to someone in a position of trust that has swindled thousands in expenses then its just another example of why there were riots in the first place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quinnwok Posted August 18, 2011 Share Posted August 18, 2011 Yes its a big stitch up. If someone can get a longer prison sentence for pinching a pair of trainers compared to someone in a position of trust that has swindled thousands in expenses then its just another example of why there were riots in the first place. :hihi: true:hihi::hihi: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.