Riots

[french frank]

And on the BBC radio news, a Trustee of the Magistrates' Trust is making the same point, worrying about the speed at which 'justice' is being meted out

I'm less worried about the speed as the nature of the punishments.

In some ways, the speed has probably been a good thing in that it's dominated the headlines and seems (fingerscrossedemoticon) to have dampened down the activity and feelings, especially among the younger ones who unthinkingly joined in with the mob. It must be obvious to them all - criminals and naive - that they are a minority, and the community - their community - isn't with them.

Perhaps sentencing should be deferred until everything has cooled down.

[Lateralthinking1]

Bill Bratton - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_J._Bratton - Four times married. I'm not saying that is a bad thing. It would be naive though to think that it wouldn't influence his thinking. Criticised for liking travel too much and therefore enjoying long periods of absence during his work roles. One person. I think we expect too much of one person if we decide that one person can wave a magic wand. And, of course, a harsh zero tolerance outlook towards others frequently emerges as over-compensation in psychology for a deficit in an individual's ability to "self-police" personal behaviour if not lawfulness. A shame but there it is. This though is the bit that alarms me, mainly because I don't understand it: "Bratton.....continued to serve as chief until October 31, 2009. Bratton moved back to New York City to take a position with private international security firm Altegrity Risk International, serving as a Chairman of a new division where he would consult on security for police departments worldwide"

and

"Altegrity Risk International (ARI) is a New York City based global risk consulting and information services company. A subsidiary of Altegrity, Inc. of Falls Church, VA, ARI provides investigations, business intelligence, forensic accounting, compliance & monitoring and security services to businesses and government agencies around the world.

Product Offerings

Investigative & Forensic Services - Altegrity Risk International investigates backgrounds of companies and individuals on behalf of clients in the course of both pre-emptive and post-crisis engagements.
Decision Intelligence - ARI produces due diligence reviews for clients involved in principal investing, hedge fund investments (in the course of both compliance and transactional diligence) as well as those who seek to understand risk and opportunities associated with doing business with individuals and companies worldwide.
Security Consulting - Altegrity Security Consulting provides advisory and training services to international civilian police departments, consulting on operational effectiveness as well as crisis management and through CRI, strategies and services for managing kidnap, ransom and extortion crisis".

HEDGE FUNDS??????????

[scottycelt]

I have no problem whatsoever with these thugs and looters being 'over-sentenced' if that is what is happening.

A strong signal must be sent to other like-minded individuals as to what to expect if they deliberately kill, injure and ruin innocent people's lives and if an example has to be made of the current crop of miscreants, well so be it.

If this deters others and saves more innocent lives and property in the long run it is wholly justified. The thugs should now be made to realise that, if convicted, they can now expect about as much 'fairness' from society as they afforded to their victims.

'Declaring war' on arson, looting and thuggery should mean exactly that!

[amateur51]

I'm less worried about the speed as the nature of the punishments.

In some ways, the speed has probably been a good thing in that it's dominated the headlines and seems (fingerscrossedemoticon) to have dampened down the activity and feelings, especially among the younger ones who unthinkingly joined in with the mob. It must be obvious to them all - criminals and naive - that they are a minority, and the community - their community - isn't with them.

Perhaps sentencing should be deferred until everything has cooled down.

The point he is making is that the speed of the decision-making may compromise the quality and consistency of the judgements because the magistrates, who are experienced people on the whole but volunteers nonetheless, are not getting the type and quality of information that they are used to usually.

[amateur51]

I have no problem whatsoever with these thugs and looters being 'over-sentenced' if that is what is happening.

A strong signal must be sent to other like-minded individuals as to what to expect if they deliberately kill, injure and ruin innocent people's lives and if an example has to be made of the current crop of miscreants, well so be it.

If this deters others and saves more innocent lives and property in the long run it is wholly justified. The thugs should now be made to realise that, if convicted, they can now expect about as much 'fairness' from society as they afforded to their victims.

'Declaring war' on arson, looting and thuggery should mean exactly that!

How long is Lord Justice Leveson's inquiry into phone-hacking going to take? It's not started yet What odds that some important people get off scot-free?

I do care that 'justice' for the rioteers and thieves may become disproportionate so that it is seen to be speedy. It's a fine example of a 'knee-jerk reaction' and quite unnecessary.

Are there any JPs on the Board who would care to comment?

[french frank]

The point he is making is that the speed of the decision-making may compromise the quality and consistency of the judgements because the magistrates, who are experienced people on the whole but volunteers nonetheless, are not getting the type and quality of information that they are used to usually.

A fair point and there's a more than even chance that he knows more about it than I do

Someone linked earlier to Larry Elliott's comments - on 20 years' experience of being a magistrate. There are complications of scale and the severity of the law-breaking here - but that was my point: bringing them to court promptly is one thing, delivering sentences something possibly to be deferred.

[Donnie Essen]

Just over-sentence everyone involved. I don't believe in collective guilt or nothin', but those fool chancers without criminal records who just made a mistake and got tempted and did minor stuff like grabbing a new shirt or something just 'cause they thought they could need to learn hard, 'cause they were instrumental in the escalation of it all. That escalation leads to things going crazy and to a tipping-point that they might not have expected or wanted to happen. But it did happen and folk then died. Those young asian guys didn't get driven into on a random day. Nor would usually a guy get killed for the simple act of trying to stop a fire in a bin, of all things. The moral compass went askew. Proper criminals will always take advantage. The other, more normal folk need to understand why they shouldn't join in and many on those days seemed to not understand that.

I don't know about taking people's homes away. They oughtta judge it right in each case. If they can afford to not be in social housing (not everyone there really needs it and they're taking the places of those that do), then penalise them into the private sector.

[Donnie Essen]

Man, I sound like a hard-ass there. Ignore me.

[Serial_Apologist]

Man, I sound like a hard-ass there. Ignore me.

No no, I largely agree... 'cept when it comes to evictions. Purely from a practical pov where do you put 'em? How much (more?) would it cost (us)? And by implementing the "evict those that can afford to go private" in the first place, you leave council estates ghettos of the unemployed... and the disenfranchised, with all that as we have witnessed results from that.

[eighthobstruction]

Man, I sound like a hard-ass there. Ignore me.

Well Donnie, you should be OK then if the person behind you has a knee-jerk reaction....

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

yeah man been some heavy knee action lately .... right wing is beginning to crow like Jim


Jim 1

Jim 2

Jim 3

Jim 4 the rich


leaving people begging on the streets is not a solution to social disorder merely a displacement of the revenue streams ...

[Mr Pee]

What excellent links, AKACDJ. Thank you. If you keep reading and watching such stuff, you may eventually see the light. I was particularly impressed by David Starkey- and since we're talking about "knee-jerk reactions", it's no surprise to see the usual such knee-jerk cry of racism from the usual quarters.

[Donnie Essen]

No no, I largely agree... 'cept when it comes to evictions. Purely from a practical pov where do you put 'em? How much (more?) would it cost (us)? And by implementing the "evict those that can afford to go private" in the first place, you leave council estates ghettos of the unemployed... and the disenfranchised, with all that as we have witnessed results from that.

Yeah, talk like that, practical details, usually leaves me out of my depth, although I've recently finished seasons 1 and 2 of 'Law and Order' on DVD, so I'm learning. Reading back, I wasn't comfortable with myself making those kinds of statements to do with people's homes. I'm not a decider of such things by nature.

[eighthobstruction]

>>'Cameron lives, breathes and embodies a love of family. His politics is all about social relationships. He is fascinated by education policy. This is his moment. A moment to embark on a crusade to ensure a child born in August 2011 doesn’t become the 16-year-old looter of 2027. That is, if Nick Clegg will let him.'<<....Hmmm Torygraph isn't it....

David Starkey was so completely out of his depth it was amazing [some small bits of it correct]....to see him talk with such lack of clarity and ambiguity was sad....and for him to push this lack of clarity and ambiguity with such gusto made me think he was no better than a well educated Taxi driver, shouting his opinions over his shoulder in London traffic....and should stick to the Tudors [he is obviously better with 500 year old retrospect]....

[Lateralthinking1]

I am biased towards all historians. I therefore think that Starkey deserves to be heard a bit. He is right to mention Powell's "Rivers of Blood" speech. There are always key reference points in politics that need revisiting time and again. You could have looked at the election of Obama with reference to the prior election of Bush, Clinton and Bush. Alternatively, you could view its symbolism in the context of Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King. I know which one I instinctively chose in my delight because that reached to the heart of it. Some 18 or so years after Powell's moment, his name was virtually unmentionable in my circles. I had witnessed a few attitudes on the streets in South London - "Enoch was right". I remember going totally raving mad one Christmas Day in the seventies when our local Enoch decided to launch into his manifesto. Age and experience give one the confidence to say "let him speak". This is, in fact, the true mark of a liberal. The guy was actually similar to his political hero - erudite, well-read and highly intellectual, albeit with greasy hair and the stains of dinner on his suit - and a great deal more complex than the Blairs and Camerons of this world could ever be. For that reason alone, it is just stupid to block the ears in horror and revulsion.

For example, he had spent many years living in Africa. I never had and will never do so. He had tremendous admiration for many African people and was in regular correspondence with those he had known. He thought that the white English were full of themselves and could learn a great deal from black cultures. It was just that he was against the concept of multiculturalism. I still disagree strongly on that latter point. However, that Starkey was able to return to a key reference point from history - brave - and to say that Powell had largely got it wrong is to his credit. It suggests an element of self-critique by association, the kind that tends to show that someone has acquired a degree of maturity. I also credit him - an elderly academic - for trying to understand popular culture in 2011. This opened him up to lame minded attack from the other panelists who showed no signs of wanting to see beyond their own boxes. I doubt frankly that either would have had the ability to do it. Predictably, he got things both right and wrong. I totally agree with him on the language and that ludicrous example of the Olympic ambassador he used. It indicates a sort of baby like fantasy distance from reality in the individual concerned.

And I don't watch The Sopranos. I don't have every cd in the current Top 40. I am still though very close to all aspects of popular culture. I know my Public Enemy and yet I had absolutely no idea what people were referring to by "the Feds" or some of the other terms. And now I do know, it merely highlights what in a cultural way is partially their own self-encouraged alienation and irrelevance. It also alienated me. While he takes the discussion on language itself to places where it needs to dare to tread - all behaviour is a language - he does get this wrong in several respects. One, in the defining of rap and hip-hop culture as black. While it is true that it essentially emanates from black artists with some very repetitive angles in theme, most of the companies that promote it are predominantly white. It is a new slavery - the huge but nevertheless smaller circle within the bigger contextual one which is simply being processed as empowerment. Obviously, for that reason, there is a strong death fix. It is a con. Two, while there may be elements of Jamaican patois in the speech of every modern Giles and Arabella, the language is not the same as that of say the late Smiley Culture. It is a heavily Americanised form of it rather than a British one and that is a very crucial point.

So what he should have said is that the whites have become black Americans. The same applies to black young people too. In fact, he needed to go further. They have become a fantasy of black Americans that is being used to boost the huge profits of a media that lives off it colourblind. And so whether or not you think it is right to criticise the ethics of MPs, bankers, etc- let us say for the moment you don't - this still actually turns back to "the system" that they endorse and promote. The limited prospects - employment etc - are a key part of it too. But it is the culture that has gripped and turned its attack on the less commercial aspects of public life - like law and order and democracy. Democracy has effectively brought that on itself and us. All of us. People like Oborne and Hitchens are as miles away in their thinking as Galloway and Serwotka from the cosy Westminster consensus. If things are to be changed, it might be best to declare some sort of truce wherever possible on the war between old left and old right. Only then can we recognise that those are both more on the side of history and the truer aspirations of all youth. Politicians and commercial interests, whatever they say, are on the side of a kind of systemic anarchy which places the main division through the middle of the system they claim they are seeking to hold together. Older style liberals would see that clearly too.