Riots

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

seems to me there are two mobs to every riot, the mob who did it ... and the one after howling for blood ....


zero tolerance has a useful concept at it its root; that accountability should be made good fast and appropriately at every level of misdemeanour, the idea that not tolerating the small infringement prevents the greater offence through deterrence and detention [as when fare dodgers in NYC were found to have long lists of undischarged warrants for arrest] ... it also has been seen to work in litter/graffiti/vandalsim ... not one broken window etc ... ... alone it is not enough, environmental improvement and redesign on a human scale also impact positively on behaviour


there was a remarkable report last nigh on newsnight on the slums in Manila ... social order, economic activity and education were succeeding in the most unlikely of circumstances ... there was however a self organised police force whose main duty was to protect the slum against arson by property developers ... but they carried big sticks

[Lateralthinking1]

I am not sure that proportionality matters now that everything is completely on the rocks. The old rules of engagement are now largely an irrelevance. The contracts have been broken all round. While Tom Brake, a local MP, may have a point, it does him no credit to make that his main issue. This will be his last term as an MP because of that statement. MPs are now stepping over more boundaries. It was the police. Now it is the courts. In doing so, they simply underline that they are actually on the sidelines. I have come to the conclusion that the rioters didn't strike at political targets because most regarded them as of no interest to them. By contrast, university students still feel that they have a limited stake.

Rules as we knew them are no longer what they were. Currently the Head of the Civil Service appears to be doing his utmost not to reveal the full information about credit card abuse by his senior officials. The rumour on the grapevine is that this has been rife. And then there is FOI. The revolting Cabinet Office Minister Maude has issued statements recently to the effect that we are about to enter into FOI Phase 2 which will lead to even greater openness. Typically, this is being done when they aren't even getting Phase 1 right. The Cabinet Office itself is currently being investigated for a very poor record on meeting deadlines. Indeed, I can confirm that four enquiries I have raised with it under FOI are now way past the deadline and reminders have not been replied to with an effective response. In fact, make that any response.

The rules of multiculturalism. There is another set that has been chucked onto flames. The final decision of many people that they should bury the hatchet and pull together came with the decision to loot and commit arson. We should not though forget the second strand of it. The EDL claims it is friendly with the whites, the blacks, the Jewish and the gay. It even has wings for each of them. If it wasn't for its opposition to extreme Islam, it could almost be the New Seekers - "I'd like to teach the world to sing in perfect harmony". Strange. It hardly matters about the sentences. What matters are the rules and they have all been ignored, by-passed, trodden on, and torn to shreds. Brake will have his views. He might have sounded more plausible if this were the 1990s.

[ahinton]

I am not sure that proportionality matters now that everything is completely on the rocks.

I rather think that it matters even more if, as you say (and I do not necessarily agree in all particulars) "everything is on the rocks".

The old rules of engagement are now largely an irrelevance. The contracts have been broken all round. While Tom Brake, a local MP, may have a point, it does him no credit to make that his main issue. This will be his last term as an MP because of that statement. MPs are now stepping over more boundaries. It was the police. Now it is the courts. In doing so, they simply underline that they are actually on the sidelines. I have come to the conclusion that the rioters didn't strike at political targets because most regarded them as of no interest to them. By contrast, university students still feel that they have a limited stake.

There are laws made by parliament, there are police to monitor adherence to them and there is a judiciary to deal with their breaches. No one is suggesting that any, let alone all, of these three are perfect or that they have ever been so, nor would anyone in his/her right mind claim that any law is not or should not be subject to revision appropriate to new circumstances or that the existence of any or all of these three things can ever be expected to guarantee that some people will not get away with breaking laws. The rioters appear to have acted as they did principally as a consequence of pent-up frustration - real, imagined or incited; I accept that any suggestion that those who participated in them in order to loot did so out of a desire to "strike at political targets" is itself well off target, since neither the assets of the wealthy nor police stations and other buildings associated with authority hardly fell victim to the rioters' actions; for example, had a desire on the part of certain economically disaffected citizens to effect some kind of redistribution of wealth been a motive for such actions, one might assume that there would have been far less criminal damage done to persons and physical property and far more efforts made instead to hack the bank accounts of wealthy individuals and businesses and divert funds therefrom.

Rules as we knew them are no longer what they were.

Nor were they ever; laws and lawmaking are, have always been and need constantly to be appropriately fluid, otherwise the laws might do less than they otherwise would to meet the needs of the day.

Currently the Head of the Civil Service appears to be doing his utmost not to reveal the full information about credit card abuse by his senior officials. The rumour on the grapevine is that this has been rife. And then there is FOI. The revolting Cabinet Office Minister Maude has issued statements recently to the effect that we are about to enter into FOI Phase 2 which will lead to even greater openness. Typically, this is being done when they aren't even getting Phase 1 right. The Cabinet Office itself is currently being investigated for a very poor record on meeting deadlines. Indeed, I can confirm that four enquiries I have raised with it under FOI are now way past the deadline and reminders have not been replied to with an effective response. In fact, make that any response.

I do not for one moment deny the existence of such inefficiencies and unwarrantable delays or of credit card abuse in high places or of the questionable effectiveness of the FOI Act but, at the same time, not every MP or high ranking civil servant is responsible for such matters or commits offences thereunder.

The rules of multiculturalism. There is another set that has been chucked onto flames. The final decision of many people that they should bury the hatchet and pull together came with the decision to loot and commit arson. We should not though forget the second strand of it. The EDL claims it is friendly with the whites, the blacks, the Jewish and the gay. It even has wings for each of them. If it wasn't for its opposition to extreme Islam, it could almost be the New Seekers - "I'd like to teach the world to sing in perfect harmony". Strange. It hardly matters about the sentences. What matters are the rules and they have all been ignored, by-passed, trodden on, and torn to shreds. Brake will have his views. He might have sounded more plausible if this were the 1990s.

Many people might twist and bend the law or certain rules and the practical application of either or both if so they choose, but some do so more effectively and frequently than others and plenty more do not do either at all; an unwillingness to accept this truth seems to me to risk leading to the throwing out of the baby with the bathwater.

However, you're obviously under no obligation to take my word for any of this, but you might find it usefully informative to read

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14559294

and
http://www.economist.com/blogs/bageh...=Google+Reader.

Although the latter (which has just been drawn to my attention in another pace) concentrates from time to time on perceptions of particular phenomena that have been raised by some as having a direct impact on the inappropriate behaviour of rioters and looters, its importance and its relevance here is in its clarification that what we've lately encountered is nothing new and that coming up with ill-consideed knee-jerk response to it is of no more use to anyone today than ever it was.

[scottycelt]

Nick Clegg ... who sometimes talks a great deal of sense ... spoke of the harrowing interview he had with the lady who had to jump from her burning flat to save her life. When Mr Clegg interviewed her some days later he claimed the poor lady was wearing the same clothes she wore on that fateful day because she simply couldn't afford any new clothing. I wonder if his fellow Liberal Democrat, the well-to-do Baroness Hamwee, has any real idea what life's reality must be like for such unfortunates ?

I'd also like to advise Mr Ahinton that I am not a reporter of any kind. I simply get most of my information from the BBC, and, if any of it is false, I apologise, whilst pointing out that all such information was passed on in good faith, and as yet none of it has been disputed, as far as I'm aware.

'Zero tolerance with zero tolerance' can only mean one thing ... ie, zero tolerance of crime will not be tolerated which most obviously suggests a degree of tolerance of crime. Simple logic, and not anyone's 'interpretation'.

If politicians and others don't actually mean what they say maybe they should search for more suitable and accurate slogans ... ?

[amateur51]

If politicians and others don't actually mean what they say maybe they should search for more suitable and accurate slogans ... ?

Oh really scotty, where's the fun in that??

That really is a counsel of perfection

[Anna]

terrible English!

On the subject of length of sentences you must remember that 12 months doesn't mean a year anymore than 4 years equals 48 months.

If a sentence is less than 12 months they get Automatic Unconditional Release halfway through.
If 12 months or more but less than four years it’s still ACR but on license. Sentences of 4 years or more (but not life) are subject to Discretionary Conditional Release, which means that the prisoner becomes eligible for release at the half way stage but not automatic release without consideration plus with license and tagging I believe. Amount of time spent in remand is also deducted from the sentence. It's something to bear in mind when looking at the sentencing.

[amateur51]

On the subject of length of sentences you must remember that 12 months doesn't mean a year anymore than 4 years equals 48 months.

If a sentence is less than 12 months they get Automatic Unconditional Release halfway through.
If 12 months or more but less than four years it’s still ACR but on license. Sentences of 4 years or more (but not life) are subject to Discretionary Conditional Release, which means that the prisoner becomes eligible for release at the half way stage but not automatic release without consideration plus with license and tagging I believe. Amount of time spent in remand is also deducted from the sentence. It's something to bear in mind when looking at the sentencing.

It's the original sentence that will go down on someone's criminal record though, Anna

[Lateralthinking1]

ahinton - You write with the precision of a political Jane Austen. I'm not a fan of hers but there might be something to be said for it in the current day. You also generally place weights on the scales in an attempt to re-balance them. I tend to do that too in my own way and therefore welcome that approach in principle. However, what we might both need to accept is that with every "it is this as well as that", we don't overlook the stress points. The zeitgeist can be lopsided in very significant ways.

On 1, the "on the rocks", I note your view. On 2 and 3, the effectiveness of state apparatus, I agree we should accept both imperfection and ongoing change. There does though seem to be an exceptional amount of the former. As for the latter, it is far too reactive in my opinion. I don't think I agree that the rioters acted "principally as a consequence of pent-up frustration". This looks like a phrase used by psychiatrists to underplay a condition and only ever-so-delicately place the blame. Every contribution on this thread is probably relevant to what has taken place. I believe that redistribution of wealth - in money, opportunity, power, control, management, morality......etc etc - was a key issue. I have to say that I don't know anyone who can hack into bank accounts but it might be that I am keeping the wrong company. Do tell me more if you have any decent information.

On 4, you are quite right that not everyone is grabbing from the till. We have though seen a sea-change. Once - oh, I don't know, around 2005 perhaps, even with Blair as PM - one might have believed that this was a minority sport that unfortunately was a bit on the rise. The revelations on MPs' expenses showed that it was somewhere in the region of 80% in their House of Horrors. That was a defining moment which shouldn't be underestimated. It was, I think, the time, that we stopped unfairly blaming the odd disappearances of purses in the office on the evening cleaners and instead started to zip up the pockets as soon as any colleague was seen heading towards the desk.

Most tended to keep silent and smile. You then asked yourself why they were smiling. It was obviously horrible - really horrible - and you knew that things just weren't like that before. To ask the salient questions openly was like to declare oneself as the enemy within for coming across suddenly "kind of" all moralistic. So with this in mind, yes, the Cabinet Office might simply be suffering from FOI inefficiencies. Alternatively it might be delaying while it shifts in its seat uncomfortably and plays with its stress busters. On 5, multiculturalism, are the rioters - indeed are EDL - a twist on the old or a small reflection of the nation's twisted? Either way, the patterns are shifting.

The links are interesting and not without truth but actually I am not accepting it. For a start, Brixton '81 was very different. It was almost exclusively related to race and particularly stop and search. The riots were also very localised to the point of being ring fenced, just as they were in Toxteth, Handsworth, St Pauls. In terms of the 50s, yes, the teddy boys and the like showed that a significant section of youth neither chooses or prefers peacetime but the scale was much smaller, as indeed was it in and across subsequent movements. And I just don't buy into the well-trodden argument that the 1800s show us such events are nothing new. It ignores both the deficit of democracy in that century and the fact that there were times in the 20th century when with increasing rights almost everyone exercised greater responsibilities - Lat.

[Anna]

It's the original sentence that will go down on someone's criminal record though, Anna

Oh, I do realise that Ams, I was just pointing out a fact which, probably everyone knows but some may not. I wasn't commenting on the length of sentences handed out being a good or a bad thing, merely the law as it stands.

In fact, it's pretty ridiculous isn't it. Why not sentence sometime to 2 months definite detention instead of 4 months which then equals 2 ??

[PJPJ]

"A looter who helped himself to an ice-cream cone during the disturbances was warned on Tuesday that he could be jailed.

Anderson Fernandes, 22, appeared before magistrates in Manchester charged with burglary after he took two scoops of coffee ice-cream and a cone from Patisserie Valerie in the city centre. He gave the cone away because he didn't like the flavour."

(Guardian)

And, had he not done so during a disturbance, he would not be in the trouble he's in.

[amateur51]

I was thinking of Wales as I replied to you in #560, Anna and I fell to pondering why the riot centres were all in England - none in Scotland or Wales, as far as I know.

Can anyone fathom out why?

[amateur51]

Oh, I do realise that Ams, I was just pointing out a fact which, probably everyone knows but some may not. I wasn't commenting on the length of sentences handed out being a good or a bad thing, merely the law as it stands.

In fact, it's pretty ridiculous isn't it. Why not sentence sometime to 2 months definite detention instead of 4 months which then equals 2 ??

Something to do with a reward for good behaviour, perhaps Anna?

[ahinton]

I'd also like to advise Mr Ahinton that I am not a reporter of any kind. I simply get most of my information from the BBC, and, if any of it is false, I apologise, whilst pointing out that all such information was passed on in good faith, and as yet none of it has been disputed, as far as I'm aware.

No need and no problem; I've never suggested or assumed at any time that you're a journalist.

'Zero tolerance with zero tolerance' can only mean one thing ... ie, zero tolerance of crime will not be tolerated which most obviously suggests a degree of tolerance of crime. Simple logic, and not anyone's 'interpretation'.

Not at all. "Zero tolerance" has to be defined specifically for every circumstance in which anyone might seek to invoke it. In the case of crime, "zero tolerance", taken literally, means no tolerance of crime under any circumstances, but the question of tolerance or otherwise of any crimial activity is by no means the same issue as sentencing policy, since it is only reasonable that the shareholders (i.e. the taxpayers who fund parliament, the police and the judiciary) can be satisfied at any given time that laws are appropriate, policing policy is sensible and workable and the courts treat each case before them in a reasonable manner in accordance with its gravity rather than rush into issuing a sentence because of the sheer volume of cases to be gotten through.

If politicians and others don't actually mean what they say maybe they should search for more suitable and accurate slogans ... ?

But they do that too, don't they? (or at least have their PR people do it on their behalf) - but then not all politicians say one thing and mean another, just as not everyone interprets what they read in specifically scottyceltic ways.

[mangerton]

amateur51 #564 - A number of reasons occur to me. Some may not be altogether serious.

The Scots have different values.
The Scots are better behaved.
The Scots have more common sense.
The Scots have a greater respect for authority, including the police.
Some Scottish cities look like riot zones anyway - difficult to tell the difference.
The weather's not been too good for rioting lately - too cold and wet.

[Serial_Apologist]

And the Welsh have the chap'pel