[Closed] rioter jailed for 11.5 years

UN-F*****G-LUCKY!!!
Arson is arson, if it's committed during a riot or not.

not sure what the typical sentence is for arson but presumably he's toward the upper end as a warning to the peasantry

dunno about wild & crazy - was a stupid, callous, ****ty thing to have done, though

Shame!

Maybe the judges should dish out some heavier sentences like this and it might deter these scumbags from doing things like this again.

Good.

I'm sure in common with most of the rioters, he thought his magic hoody/cloak of invisibility, pulled up over his head meant he would never see the inside of a courtroom

The fact that these people are so spectacularly dim is probably a reflection of education system. Or summink

Sounds a bit too lenient to me.

He was given 11 and a half years for the arson, two years each for two counts of burglary, and three years for a third count of burglary, to run concurrently.

18 1/2 years?

@ dirtydog - concurrently means they run on top of each other (so you serve the longest sentence).
Consecutively would have meant they run one after the other.....

(had to look it up, myself)......

you can guarantee that by spending five years in this countrys prisons, he will emerge a changed person, a blessing to society indeed.

What is the point of concurrent sentences? Should be consecutive all the time, he knew what he was doing and he should pay the price, idiot. I shudder when I see the pic of the Polish lady jumping out of the window!

What is the point of concurrent sentences?

Its the same reason as explains every flaw in our present judicial system. Unless we want to build a load of new prisons, there's simply nowhere to put the ****s! And they know it!

concurrent sentences - if they are acquitted on one of the crimes on appeal the other sentences are still running so they don't get out of jail

if they are acquitted on one of the crimes on appeal the other sentences are still running so they don't get out of jail

would still equally apply to consecutive sentences. They would just need ranking - Id suggest most onerous first, then if acquitted they fall out of the term to serve like in tetris, leaving unexpired terms of un-acquitted sentences to move forward.

Funny how driving without due care and killing people gets a slap on a wrist.

Way over the top 5 years max and 5 years probabtion on top.

Excellent, hope if it goes to appeal, he gets more years.

Nob.

Arson does seem to get higher sentences than manslaughter.

I remember a notification story way back round my area of a guy dying in jail. He'd committed arson on a farmers barn where the food was stored for the animals. Apparently there is some old law covering that specific crime which means life inside with no parole (if I'm not mistaken)

Mrdestructo .. no idea waht you're thinking of? Could easily have been arson with intent to endanger life which carries life, we don't do this "without parole" thing here..

A couple of legal bods I follow on twitter reckon the sentence was 'about right' for the arson regardless of the surrounding riot so it doesn't look like it's been loaded as a result of the rioting.

Arson of a royal dockyard was still punishable by death until the early 70s
Capital punishment for murder was abolished a while before that

The indictment wasn’t a straight Arson - it was Arson recklessly endangering life, which carries a sentence of Life imprisonment on conviction, so he was very fortunate not to get a longer term.

Good, I’m glad he’s been locked up - the horrendous ****. It was luck that nobody was killed.

Hopefully his cell is unfurnished.

This was major arson and not just common and garden rioting hence the much bigger punishment. He hasn't much to complain about in my view. Apart from damage and economic costs a fire like that could have easily killed some people. Just for creating that risk he deserves a long stretch.

Good, though sadly he'll be out in next to no time.

apparently its 11 n a half years n he has to serve at least half before hes eligible for early release, so i reckon 6 years max.

GOOD!

hope he does the full sentence

Hopefully his cell is unfurnished.

Harsh but funny, 😀

What is the point of concurrent sentences?

It's not entirely pointless, because it means that, although all but the longest sentence are irrelevant in terms of punishment this time around, they will all be on his record for the judge to consider should he ever be convicted of anything else, and they would influence any future sentence.

He already had 20 convictions and people think that getting 11 years for such a serious offence is a surprise considering his history?

If this was the States he'd be doing way more but imo I think the lot over the pond go a little OTT.

Shame the link shows the wrong building on fire. The iconic Reeves furniture store didn't have a dome roof as in the link (that was another building opposite) it had a really weird roof which always fascinated me as I walked past.

[img] [/img]
[img] [/img]

Note how the rainwater pipes (seen clearer in the first pic) were bent into a weird shape to overcome the strange dormer window roofs. That mad roof never made sense to me, but it obviously worked as the building had been standing for a fair few years. I shall miss it and it's weird roof. So whilst I think 11 years is a fairly heavy sentence the moron should have got a couple of years specifically for destroying that crazy roof.

EDIT : Looking at the link again that wasn't the building opposite, it was another building in Broad Green about 2 or 3 miles away. Pretty sloppy journalism.

Why oh why don't we have these sentances for other things as well? Most sentances just show that the law isn't worth worrying about.
Lets have a couple of zero's onto every fine and muliply prison sentances by 3

If anything good comes from it all, the family who own the business will be able to rebuild with a much more efficient, lower-cost building that should help reduce their heating bills at least.

Our warehouse blew up about 15 years ago and thanks to the insurers and chipping in with some of our own cash we were able to rebuild a much bigger building that suited the business much better than the old one.

Why oh why don't we have these sentances for other things as well? Most sentances just show that the law isn't worth worrying about.
Lets have a couple of zero's onto every fine and muliply prison sentances by 3

I don't think having the highest per capita prison population in Western Europe has led to the lowest crime rates in Western Europe, so that's probably why there is no will to multiply prison sentances by 3.

[url= http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/uk/06/prisons/html/nn1page1.stm ]England and Wales have the highest per capita prison population in Western Europe[/url]

have we ascertained whether he had a personal grudge against the owners of the shop..?
Or was he just sending out a very strong message that comfy chairs will not be tolerated after the peasants have seized power and the underclass have been liberated..?

Our high prison population says more about the our police force than our laws/sentencing.
Or it could just be that we have lots of criminals here.

Habitual offender that one, if he were a Rottweiler he'd have been put down..

As it is I fear he's been made 'an example' as have a few rioters, can't go having a British Spring can we..

That little episode showed the powers that be how totally unprepared they'd be to a half decent bout of insurrection. I hadn't realised they'd repealed the Riot Act, that used to be good enough, half a dozen Tommies and an officer reading it used to do the job.

Anyway I doubt it'll be the last we see of stuff like this, there is so much crap being handed to us as a society by those who should conduct themselves in a more erudite manner in the name of profitable enterprise, law giving and Government. I'll not be surprised if we have a serious uprising and not just petty criminals like this unfortunate. (Another reason they want to make an example of him, had he been an ordinary angry person it might not have looked so reasonable imv)

What was the highest example of riot-loading for sentencing?

18 months for stealing a bottle of water?

I think I agree with the principle but that seemed extreme - could ruin a life.

"could ruin a life"

It seems that most of the rioters didnt really care about ruining other people lives. Agree with all of the sentences, its just unfortunate most of them will be offered early release rather than having to serve the entire sentence given.

What was the highest example of riot-loading for sentencing?

Think you're right for physical involvement in the events.
There were some 4 year sentences for internet posts encouraging a riot (that didn't happen) though.
Makes the STW banhammer look like a tickling stick.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-15347868

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/aug/17/facebook-cases-criticism-riot-sentences

daveb - Member
It seems that most of the rioters didnt really care about ruining other people lives.

Most? How have you worked that out?

its just unfortunate most of them will be offered early release rather than having to serve the entire sentence given.

That's standard policy for all sentences is it not? I take it you're doing something to change this Tory policy rather than just moan about it online?

It's pretty clear that a lot of the sentences handed down were at the long end of what would be expected. Message being, if you commit a crime as part of a general breakdown in law and order you are going to prison for a long time. That is exactly the right message.

[i]Most? How have you worked that out? [/i]

Did you see the footage of the riots? If so did you see people caring about those around them, the people who's business they were impacting or the possible impact to the decent law abiding people who lived in those area's? If you did you saw very different footage from me. If you read my post you would also have noted that I said "It Seems", I didnt claim it as fact but as opinion.

[i]"I take it you're doing something to change this Tory policy rather than just moan about it online?"[/i]

Unfortunately this has been policy for many years and over more than just one government. People getting out of jail early for 'good behaviour', my view is that if they do not behave or follow rules while in jail then time should be added to a sentence, good behaviour should be rewarded by letting them out of jail at the end of a given sentence. I have on occasion aired my views on a far more effective place than this forum, its also the reason I am careful about who I vote for. My above comments though were just having a moan online so take it however you want.

I went on to explain myself a bit more but it sounded like a rant so deleted it, cant really be arsed getting into an argument/discussion.

I take it you're doing something to change this Tory policy rather than just moan about it online?

Bought in by a Labour government?

Dobbo - Member
Bought in by a Labour government?

I was told it was Michael Howard's work as Home Secretary, happy to be corrected.

Punishments don't work as deterents for a lot of people, i would have thought that is blindlying obvious. Having the death penalty doesn't mean murders stop happening does it!

You have a load of s*** in the UK who coudn't care less, the question is why, and what do you do to bring them inside the law rather than spend shed loads locking them up and achieving very little.

Here here, long sentencing doesn't work - look at the US.

I think it was originally introduced in the Criminal Justice Act 1991, since superceded by the 2003 Act.

Well if we stop punishing people for crime, I'm giving up work and buying some plants. Maybe set up a meth lab (I've watched all of breaking bad so should be OK).

I was told it was Michael Howard's work as Home Secretary, happy to be corrected.

The Parole Board for England and Wales was established in 1968 under the Criminal Justice Act 1967. It became an independent Executive Non-Departmental Public Body (NDPB) on 1 July 1996 under the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994. The Parole Board's role is to make risk assessments about prisoners to decide who may safely be released into the community.

Well if we stop punishing people for crime, I'm giving up work and buying some plants. Maybe set up a meth lab (I've watched all of breaking bad so should be OK).

Wrecker i am not saying don't punish, just saying that punishments are not a solution to the problem. We really need to look at why the crime is happening and do something about it. Going the route of gated communities, private security, etc. doesn't help either.

I'm giving up work and buying some plants. Maybe set up a meth lab (I've watched all of breaking bad so should be OK).

As noted above, you can be charged and convicted for internet postings without actually following through on the actions. Be careful. 😉

Godd box-set though, and most cells should have dvd players soon.

perhaps we have to ask ourselves exactly what it is that makes this socially and economically impoverished, [i]free-thinking[/i] sector of the community feel so disenfranchised from those of us with disposable income and reactionary opinions...

The sentence loadin didn't even exclusively target rioters (and inciters) - read an article somewhere (almost certainly the guardian) of some young bloke who was done for some "minor" breaking-and-entering type thing that was the kind of deal that would normally have got a minor, non-custodial sentence but he had the misfortune to be in court when the rioters were being done, and got a hefty term.

I'm not making a value judgement as to what sentencing should or shouldn't be for different offences, the point is the guy got a much heavier sentence simply because of the timing of his offence / court date.

Sorry no linky, might go and have a browse for it..

We really need to look at why the crime is happening and do something about it.

I'm not making a value judgement as to what sentencing should or shouldn't be for different offences, the point is the guy got a much heavier sentence simply because of the timing of his offence / court date.

Do you think he'd still have committed the crime if he knew what penalty he was going to get?

Yes, do you think he committed the crime thinking i am going to get caught.

If you don't believe that you will get caught then why wouldn't you commit the crime? ( if your that way inclined.)

We all know that people get killed riding bikes, does that stop people riding bikes, no, because it probably won't happen. Look at the number of bikes that get stolen, do bike thieves believe they will get caught before they nick the bike?

Maybe we need to look at how we get 100% convicition rates, if you break the law then you will be punished, not sure how you could do that without tagging and monitoring the entire population.

Yes, do you think he committed the crime thinking i am going to get caught.

If people are excluded from mainstream society and faced with a life without hope what do you expect them to do? The wonder is that it took this long to happen and hasn't happened again.

How was he identified on the store's CCTV when everything got burned in the fire?

No but he's done a risk calculation. He knows the likely penalty if he gets caught. Hence people take bigger risks for bigger rewards.

I don't think the punishment comes in at all, simply i want, i do, and maybe a passing thought about whether the police will catch him, which if you believe the Mail is very unlikely.

If nicking bikes attracted a 10 year custodial, nobody would nick bikes because they could earn the same or more with a lesser punishment (if caught) by doing something else. Risk vs Reward. Not all criminals are stupid and instinctive; some make a living out of it.

At the time we were told that this was all unconnected, mindless vandalism but then the sentences were handed out as if a rebelion had occured. Perhaps "Marcus Dowe" (according to the BBC) had a point.

If nicking bikes attracted a 10 year custodial, nobody would nick bikes because they could earn the same or more with a lesser punishment (if caught) by doing something else. Risk vs Reward. Not all criminals are stupid and instinctive; some make a living out of it.

And if you don't think you will be caught the punishment is irrelevant, you can award any punishment you like but if the chance of being caught is small why worry about it. Drivers know that speeding and using the phone are illegal, but what are the chances of getting caught? People still rob garages, jewellers, banks, etc. the punishments are harsh but the risks are small. And yes if your clever you pick your targets you ensure that you minimize the risks still further. Why expose your face, your hands etc where pictures or finger prints may increase your chance of being caught.

As far as i see it the solution is to make people feel that this is their society and to ensure that kids are educated in what is expected of them as members of that society, i believe that most crime is commited before the age of 25? Think of it as a shift from rights to responsibilities. Yes you have rights as a member of this society but you also have responsibilities within it.

How was he identified on the store's CCTV when everything got burned in the fire?

dunno, maybe it recorded to a remote location/cloud server?

Drivers know that speeding and using the phone are illegal, but what are the chances of getting caught?

wrecker, i'll have to differ on this, you seem to believe that the sentence is what matters as a deterence, whereas i believe the chance of being caught is what matters, and the sentence is almost irrelevant.

I say almost, having seen how some kids treat asbos and cautions knowing that they are effectively above the law. being caught is irrelevant because there is no punishment even if they are caught.

you seem to believe that the sentence is what matters as a deterence, whereas i believe the chance of being caught is what matters,

Did anyone see Our Crime: Riot on one of the BBC channels the other night? It was filmed using footage recorded by bystanders during the riots and it gives a whole host of viewpoints on what happened.

If anyone wants to watch it, it's on iPlayer.

[url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/p00pj0m7/Our_Crime_Riot/ ]Linky[/url]

In the programme a girl gets a ten year sentence for stealing a pair of shoes from a shop, or rather walking out with an odd pair after picking them up before discarding them.

When you think of the length of other sentences handed out for relatively petty crimes during the riots, 11.5 years for burning down a business hardly seems long enough IMO.

Dobbo - Member
The Parole Board for England and Wales was established in 1968 under the Criminal Justice Act 1967. It became an independent Executive Non-Departmental Public Body (NDPB) on 1 July 1996 under the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994. The Parole Board's role is to make risk assessments about prisoners to decide who may safely be released into the community.

I was referring to offenders etting out in 50% of their sentence as a general principle.

To say that the severity of potential punishment is not considered by criminals is not correct.

no it's not correct.. I had a misspent youth and flirted with petty crime..

sometimes, if you want to succeed, you have to work out your hourly rate while you're in chokey..

If you're crime is likely to get you a ten stretch then you need to be clearing about £880 000 to get a return of £10 per hour..

nicking trainers just wouldn't cut the mustard IMHO

Same old same old crime and punishment debate.

Simple Truths

1) You don't get punished for breaking the law, you only ever get punished for getting caught.
2) Locking people up demonstrably doesn't work.
3) Repeating something that doesn't work expecting a different outcome is mental.

By that logic, investing more in detection, less in punishment, and more in correction could well be the way forward. Unfortunately however, to get elected it is necessary to persuade half wits to vote for you, therefore the chances of positive change appear very slim in the foreseeable future. Sad but true.

So because they don't agree with you, people are half wits? 🙄

Should be 11.5 years hard labour to boost the economy i.e. pay him (or them) below far east wage or put him/them to hard labour until they pay back all the money ...

I rather like the idea of enslaving and putting people to hard labour North Korean style.

😈

So because they don't agree with you, people are half wits?

Obviously...

To be fair it does make sense. For Berm Bandit to consider those who disagree with him as more intelligent would makes no sense at all.

Mind you I'm only agreeing with BB because I don't want to be labeled as a halfwit.

Hmm does make sense now you point it out.