Should the british police be armed
It could have saved inocent lifes during the riots of far right thugs shooting some of the rioters before they rioted and murderd.
This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
ArishMell · 70-79, M
@Alter4Ego It was not "instant jailing" - someone may be arrested and held in custody but only a hearing in Court can instruct a prison sentence and that usually includes the remand.
However, I do agree we must invest more in the judicial system - and the Police. These, like all the public services generally, have suffered from funding cut after funding cut by governments of both parties for decades, apparently applied on pure cost rather than value criteria.
I wonder if there might be other factors beginning to calm things down.
One is the dawning realisation that not only can you be arrested for committing the crimes, but also for inciting them by antisocial-media posts. The latter shows you can be traced.
Another is the rioters realising they not only received no support from the neighbourhoods they attacked, but those communities united afterwards to clear up the mess and repair the damage, and to condemn the vandals, irrespective of personal backgrounds and beliefs.
......
Is prison the best sentence?
For anyone organising the mayhem, whether on site or trying to hide behind an Internet nick-name, probably it is. Unfortunately the prisons are full to capacity already with "ordinary" criminals, and it is expensive to keep people locked up.
Far better, I think, would be unlimited fines, legal costs and compensation totals starting at, say, £500, and loss of driving-licences and vehicles. Many rioters are not local to their victims' areas, and the damage included wrecking cars.
Confiscation of IT equipment shall be normal practice, but not just as part of the punishment. The equipment - 'phones and computers - will of course be analysed for evidence but also to help find accomplices. The Court, but not Police, may order the equipment be destroyed, or eventually returned. If returned, all malignant material and social-media accounts will be erased, and the relevant account managers informed of this action and the reason. It will be then the social-media company's responsibility to allow or forbid the individual's request for a new account.
The threat of losing the car and "social-media" access might themselves be enough to deter many from thinking they can drive to a town, smash up and loot a few shops, and ruining other property, then calling it a "protest".
While arrests and trials of people for on-line incitement shows they can be found even if a long way from the physical mayhem.
If the financial penalty is genuinely not possible, such as for a rioter living on benefits, then use huge community orders (unpaid work) including removing litter, fly-tipping and animal-fouling, and graffiti, and as far as practicable, helping repair own or other vandals' damage generally.
Though a rioter obeying "social"-media calls to drive somewhere to wreck the place, can't be that poor.
However, I do agree we must invest more in the judicial system - and the Police. These, like all the public services generally, have suffered from funding cut after funding cut by governments of both parties for decades, apparently applied on pure cost rather than value criteria.
I wonder if there might be other factors beginning to calm things down.
One is the dawning realisation that not only can you be arrested for committing the crimes, but also for inciting them by antisocial-media posts. The latter shows you can be traced.
Another is the rioters realising they not only received no support from the neighbourhoods they attacked, but those communities united afterwards to clear up the mess and repair the damage, and to condemn the vandals, irrespective of personal backgrounds and beliefs.
......
Is prison the best sentence?
For anyone organising the mayhem, whether on site or trying to hide behind an Internet nick-name, probably it is. Unfortunately the prisons are full to capacity already with "ordinary" criminals, and it is expensive to keep people locked up.
Far better, I think, would be unlimited fines, legal costs and compensation totals starting at, say, £500, and loss of driving-licences and vehicles. Many rioters are not local to their victims' areas, and the damage included wrecking cars.
Confiscation of IT equipment shall be normal practice, but not just as part of the punishment. The equipment - 'phones and computers - will of course be analysed for evidence but also to help find accomplices. The Court, but not Police, may order the equipment be destroyed, or eventually returned. If returned, all malignant material and social-media accounts will be erased, and the relevant account managers informed of this action and the reason. It will be then the social-media company's responsibility to allow or forbid the individual's request for a new account.
The threat of losing the car and "social-media" access might themselves be enough to deter many from thinking they can drive to a town, smash up and loot a few shops, and ruining other property, then calling it a "protest".
While arrests and trials of people for on-line incitement shows they can be found even if a long way from the physical mayhem.
If the financial penalty is genuinely not possible, such as for a rioter living on benefits, then use huge community orders (unpaid work) including removing litter, fly-tipping and animal-fouling, and graffiti, and as far as practicable, helping repair own or other vandals' damage generally.
Though a rioter obeying "social"-media calls to drive somewhere to wreck the place, can't be that poor.
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment