Riot sentences "too severe"

[Rebirth]

Didn't some guy just get 7 years for attacking that Malaysian guy, only for a Labour MP to get a £3000 fine for attacking a load of blokes in a pub, which included headbutting a guy in front of police, whilst yelling "you can't touch me, i'm an MP"?

Screw the state.

[Northumbrian]

What about this one?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...king-wife.html

Only 5 years for manslaughter. This sentence was passed at around the same time somebody got 8 years for possessing a stolen Shakespeare manuscript.

I'm afraid justice is a mystery to me.

[007]

The post to which you seem to be referring (in my case) is 4 months old! I have since seen that 007 is a favoured-by-the-mods forum troll that adds nothing to the threads he infests. I've warned others not to feed the troll.

Anyone that calls me a 'sponger' or a 'scrounger' will feel the wrath of my keyboard. Do what you will.

An unemployed scrounger and sponger who calls me a retard will feel the wrath of my I phone keypad, it is an omnipotent keypad.
It is a vengefull keypad!!
bow ye all before the keypad!!

[CB100]

I agree with you. The judiciary spends too much time looking to excuse criminal behaviour. They will no doubt have argued that the man didn't know what he was doing because he was taking cocaine. To me that is missing the point. A man was killed as a result of an unprovoked attack. That should carry a mandatory life sentence.

Sentences should be based on consequences and if someone is killed as a result of reckless behaviour, the guilty party should go to prion for the rest of their lives. No excuses. No mitigation. No parole.

What about this one?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...king-wife.html

Only 5 years for manslaughter. This sentence was passed at around the same time somebody got 8 years for possessing a stolen Shakespeare manuscript.

I'm afraid justice is a mystery to me.

[bornfree]

Sentences should be based on consequences

The consequences.

In the case of the rioters I think that it's the potential consequences that is the reason for the 'severe' sentences.

Potential further rioting, lack of regard for life and property.

The sentences were fine by me.

[007]

Biggest consequence for rioters was a 5.2% increase in bennies.
Soldiers dying in Helmand capped at 1%!!!

Interesting?
Punitive measures raised against the motivated in order to reward the lazy!!

[Francis Overdere]

Biggest consequence for rioters was a 5.2% increase in bennies.
Soldiers dying in Helmand capped at 1%!!!

Interesting?
Punitive measures raised against the motivated in order to reward the lazy!!

That's it mate. You just carry on misreporting the facts. The increase in benefits is and has been matched to the rate of inflation ever since Maggie removed the link to earnings.

It has nothing to do with rewarding the lazy. Family allowance and pensions went up too.

[mranthonycfc]

Not too severe! too lenient more like.

[Patman Post]

Let's see how millionaire's daughter, student Laura Johnson from Orpington, gets treated.

It's lucky her parents can afford the best legal team because the evidence against her so far looks damning. I wouldn't have given much for her chances if she had been an an average inner-city Londoner existing on court lawyers...

[Baron von Lotsov]

I think that those who object should look past the bottle of water. To me, and the sentence seems to back this up, they were charged with being part of the rioting/looting and that they "only" stole a bottle of water is immaterial. 6 months for a bottle of water does seem excessively harsh, but call it 6 months for rioting/looting and it seems OK to me.

You don't go looting for a bottle of water though surely? Maybe the politically correct PCs needed a bit of 'racial balancing' in their crime statistics. That's my theory.