London riots: Lidl water thief jailed for six months

Do you not think that perhaps we are now getting to a situation where courts are getting sentences right by dishing out tougher sentences for these idiots?

If they are giving 6 months for lifting a case of water, then no, what do they do give those who threw a brick at the police 15 years? I think there is a wee bit too much hysteria on this thread mind you, what they are doing with this is grabbing a few headlines, which is absolutely right in this moment in time, and they need to do it, the appeals court should overturn this guys sentance, if not it’s insane.

Yes, because you can’t be any of those if you’re a young black male

Don’t be silly – you know exactly what I mean. FFS some people on here.

caused by out of work 18 yr old black lads.

Read it again and shut up.

Just chop thieves hands off ,it works well in the Arab world

In a similar way, they do appear to be massaging the news to show the demographics of the looters

Or you ‘think’ they are because the demographics don’t suit your opinion on who is responsible?

I can’t wait to see how the tories will pitch this at the Middle England voters in their next manifesto.

Just chop thieves hands off ,it works well in the Arab world

Yep, no riots there 🙄

Or you ‘think’ they are because the demographics don’t suit your opinion on who is responsible?

Really, whatever. You want to have an argument on this, go ahead and try – I have no idea what you are trying to achieve mind you.

Is it really insane for the courts to hand out punishments which are within their powers to do? No emergency legislation has been enacted here. The judiciary is merely doing what it is set up to do, enforcing the law as it currently stands and handing out sentences. It’s not a perfect system but it is what we have.

What is the answer if not stiff sentences for unprecedented levels of wanton law breaking? How do you deal with the oft repeated interview with the youth who told the BBC reporter that it was free stuff and he would continue to do it until he was caught. As for the punishment, he stated that he expected no more than a slap on the wrists. Education and / or family attitudes don’t seem to have taught him the difference between right and wrong so now it’s up to the courts. What is fascinating is the demographic that is emerging of offenders. It’s not just people from poor backgrounds but individuals from all walks of life.

Do the crime, do the time is not bollox as someone wrote earlier. It’s the basis of our justice system. I wonder how quick you would be to bemoan the relative injustice of harsh sentences if it was you, your family, your home, your business or your community that had been on the receiving end of this mindless lawlessness? Seemingly small acts taken as a whole form part of the jigsaw that has seen four murders reported, wilfull fireraising, serious assaults, armed robbery amongst other reported crimes. Individuals may have got caught up in the thrill of power that the riots brought but that is no excuse for their criminal behaviour. Lidl man is one less idiot on the streets. By all accounts, he will be joined by lots of new friends pretty soon.

Are you suggesting that the information in the article is poor and/or misleading ? If so, why are you extensively quoting the article ? I’ll check later to see your answer.

Well, only because you asked…

I’m suggesting that the information in the article is by definition second hand and selective, and that the people actually making the decisions in court might be better placed to make them than you.

What’s your problem?

And I was quoting the article because you did, to show that it doesn’t support your interpretation of events. You seemed in your earlier posts to have been saying that the guy was sent down “just” for lifting the water. I was pointing out that even your source for this info (the article) made it clear that there were several factors involved in the judgement.

Well it wasn’t my shop/livelihood that was targeted, but it was my town that was trashed and reduced to something resembling a war zone. And it was the shops that I actually use which were looted/destroyed, including my LBSs Geoffrey Butler’s and Bike Plus – both a few minutes walk from me . When I saw the damage to the town centre I was devastated, it was far worse than I had expected, and I was genuinely seriously upset, in fact I was surprised just how upset I was. I won’t however support a “anything goes” attitude when dealing with those responsible for it. I expect common-sense to prevail, not stupid knee-jerk reactions.

Ernie, I’ve lived in the (your) area all my life, as a kid I worked at GB Cycles, long before they opened Bike Plus. I know the people directly effected by this.

Why should the CRIMINAL who took a case of water be treated any differently to the one that stepped through GB Cycles window and took a bike.

He was convicted of burglary and been sentenced for it. It doesn’t matter what was taken, he was sentenced for the crime(s) committed (Burglary and rioting) NOT what was stolen.

I have a feeling that the vast majority of the people picked up by the police over the last few days will he guys like this. The proper nasty folk will have had the smarts to stay out of reach of the fuzz, the guys in the cells will be all dumb fuds like this guy.

My GF used to work with kids from what currently seems to be called the underclass, and she wasn’t at all suprised that the first people passing through the courts weren’t from that demographic- they haven’t got the same street smarts so are more likely to find themselves in the wrong place when the police show up, and then they’re the low-hanging fruit.

I’m not sure we’ve had this level of sentencing before to prove it. Secondly are you so sure of the objective that you can say it didn’t work in the past and won’t work in the future?

We have had a harsher level of sentencing in the past when it comes to rioting, stealing etc. Where would Australia’s population be without having harsher sentencing? 😉

By all means keep 16000 police on the streets of London, build more prisons, implement harsher sentencing. But don’t for a minute believe they are the complete solution to the problem and will prevent this from happening again.

Also it’s un-affordable.

the MPs had to pay back 1.2million in expenses fraudulently claimed
an impressive bit of benefit fraud considering only 4? got sent down- what were their sentences ?

do people really think when he saw Lidl he thought “I might get some free water.” He thought “free stuff with no risk of geting cought. I will get whatever I can”
The fact that water was the only thing left should have nothing to do with the sentence handed down to him. You really think if there was a PS3 sitting next to the water he would have still gone for the water.

These Londoners have no style.

In the last couple of days we’ve had Manchester looters sent down for taking violins and Liam Gallagher’s dress.

yes sentence him for what he may have done. I want more thought crime punishments and I want them NOW

Can I just take the opportunity to remind you that this time it was only water – next time it could be a Childs face!

Junky/TJ – Serious question do you think that the sentence should be commensurate with the severity of the crime committed and the prevailing circumstances, or the value of the goods stolen?

The crime was burglary

If somebody broke into a house, and stole an old ladies savings jar containing £50 do you think that the sentence should be any different from that if they broke into someone house and stole an old ladies savings jar containing £300?

If a mugger stole your wallet, and it had £3.50 in it, should he be sentenced any differently from a mugger who stole your wallet when it happened to contain £180?

This is a serious question, and deserves an answer…

Why should the CRIMINAL who took a case of water be treated any differently to the one that stepped through GB Cycles window and took a bike.

Might as well hang for a sheep as a lamb.
If sentences for all offences are harsh and some are not treated leniently it make sense to commit worse crimes as there is no greater sentence risk.

So, a man with no previous convictions, who pleaded guilty, gets 6 months for stealing £3.50 worth of goods. If that’s what we as a society judge is appropriate, then fine, but let’s see it applied consistently. I find it very hard to believe that a custodial sentence of this length for this crime would be handed out in any other circumstances.

Personally, I think that we need much more imagination in sentencing – let’s come up with properly restorative ideas rather than locking people up at enormous expense, with no discernable benefit.

If sentences for all offences are harsh and some are not treated leniently it make sense to commit worse crimes as there is no greater sentence risk.

Conversely if we choose to ignore serious crimes like burglary because there wasn’t much money involved then we are sending a message that it is okay to nick small stuff and nothing will happen if you get caught.

When I saw the damage to the town centre I was devastated, it was far worse than I had expected, and I was genuinely seriously upset, in fact I was surprised just how upset

Sounds like there might have been a riot, with some looting on the periphery, not the reverse position as portrayed by the media. The German news has certainly focused more on rioting and less on the looting than the UK media has.

you are correct graham but if this is worth 6 mths a lot of people are getting 10 years., which will appeal to some.
I would put this crime quite low down the severity scales of the riot though.

Again the willies are waved.

As ransos just mentioned, more thought into the sentence could be hugely beneficial. The petty criminal can be used for community service tasks or wherever possible as part of the repair to what they have done.

The riots will need a huge clear up operation, use those involved in it to fix the mess. It’s not as logistically easy to do this, but I bet it would be a lot cheaper and far more useful to the their rehabilitation to do so.

The striking thing is that the sentence seems disproportionate to the general event. Discussing ethics without flexibility is a very, very hard thing to do. How many of you stick completely to the rules you choose to live by?

Junky/TJ – Serious question do you think that the sentence should be commensurate with the severity of the crime committed and the prevailing circumstances, or the value of the goods stolen?

The crime was burglary

If somebody broke into a house, and stole an old ladies savings jar containing £50 do you think that the sentence should be any different from that if they broke into someone house and stole an old ladies savings jar containing £300?

If a mugger stole your wallet, and it had £3.50 in it, should he be sentenced any differently from a mugger who stole your wallet when it happened to contain £180?

This is a serious question, and deserves an answer…

EXACTLY.

Can we not just water board them all, would save the prison money.

Junky/TJ – Serious question do you think that the sentence should be commensurate with the severity of the crime committed and the prevailing circumstances, or the value of the goods stolen?

My view is that the impact upon the victim should be a significant factor in determining the severity of the crime. Which is why I would always regard breaking into an old lady’s house more seriously than stealing from a supermarket.

Conversely if we choose to ignore serious crimes like burglary because there wasn’t much money involved then we are sending a message that it is okay to nick small stuff and nothing will happen if you get caught.

But is anyone arguing that? I think all some are saying is that a 6-month custodial sentence is harsh, expensive to the taxpayer, and lacks imagination.

I think I answered that above but to continue. The value of the goods taken should neither be the deciding factor nor should they be completely ignored so it depends – clear eh 😉
Let me use some examples to clarify my view.
I suspect most folk think that breaking into a house and stealing the tv is bad but breaking in and emptying the entire contents of the house is worse. We would sentence the later greater than the former rather than just claim the offence was the same. I would argue that taking some water is more like the former than the later- the examples cited presumably involve taking everything the person had so I am not sure they are comparable directly with this case tbh. In the examples cited the money taken would not be an issue [ they took all they had I assume] but I cannot see how it directly relates to this scenario..so as I said it may or it may not be a factor.
At an extreme level would you send someone down for the same length if they both robbed an electrical store ? Lets say one took a SCART lead and the other emptied the store of all the white goods? Lets assume they were not working together..can you see no difference in crime here?
Overall my view is that this offence is trivial within the context of the riots and the crime also trivial in terms of what has been stolen overall. I dont see how or why we should ignore this when sentencing this individual. If this is the bench mark then here will be a lot of 10 year stretches coming.

Overall my view is that this offence is trivial within the context of the riots and the crime also trivial in terms of what has been stolen overall. I dont see how or why we should ignore this when sentencing this individual. If this is the bench mark then here will be a lot of 10 year stretches coming.

I know what you’re saying and that’s what I joked about in my OP. But this is just for show.

The police can do their bit on the street (albeit with their hands tied behind their backs) but once they’ve handed them over to the interview rooms the system goes mental. This whole episode showcases how embarrasses this all is.

Intent is an important consideration.

Entering a closed shop with the intent to steal things and then taking what you find is a crime. Just because the only things left in the shop happen to be low value does not change the situation.

The water was incidental. Entering the shop with the intent to steal what was there was not.

Had the chap entered the Armani shop and stolen a suit the intent would have been the same.

You should not be able to just go and help yourself to things that you want.

In recent days, 1000s and 1000s of people have gone out and helped themselves to other people’s property (by violent means). This is not a good time for the courts to sit the perpetrators on bean bags and discuss how bad they felt because they couldn’t afford a bigger TV than the one they already had.

Starving people were not stealing food to feed their families. People were stealing items of value/perceived status and then other people came along and stole what was left.

Junky – I hear what you’re saying regards the difference between stealing a scart lead, or the entire contents of the store.

However, the examples I gave were of a single item.

Lets say that instead of a case containing 6 litres of water, value £3.50, it was a case containing 6 bottles of single malt whisky, value approx £200.

Should the sentence be any different?

Personally I think they should add up the cost of all the damage to buildings and stock and increased premiums for the shop owners then divide that amount by the people convicted of looting and rioting. They can then pay their share back even if it takes them the rest of their lives. Granted many will never be able to pay it back but it will be a weight around their neck. Why as a shop owner should I have to claim on my insurance and face the increased premiums for years to come because of this scum. Why are they not forced to pay back what they have stolen, damaged. Sounds like a guy that nicks £1000 TV will get the same sentence as someone that nicks a £3.50 case of water. Yes it is all the same crime but none of the sentencing helps the shop owner to rebuild his business.

On a slightly lighter note might be worth keeping an eye out on the police auctions in London, sounds like they will be full of computers and TV’s 😉

Can we not just water board them all, would save the prison money.

Waterboarding someone for stealing bottled water – inverse homeopathic justice!

When someone cuts and pastes your reply I will admit i am reading 😉
If it was different crime then a different sentence may be appropriate.
It just depends – the value cannot be ignored in the sentence in this case here though it may not be a factor in all cases. If someone steals a car for example the value of the car should not be a factor as the impact is the same.
I dont think you can get £300 worth of whiskey out of Lidl without filling a car boot.

6 months for a £3.50 bottle of water.

I wish those sentancing guidelines were used when the mps stole all that money from us to buy antiques, moat improvements, 2nd home allowances, toilet brushes, duck houses and the rental of porno films.

Grauniad linky

Relevant article from a JP.

Ernie, I’ve lived in the (your) area all my life, as a kid I worked at GB Cycles, long before they opened Bike Plus. I know the people directly effected by this.

Why should the CRIMINAL who took a case of water be treated any differently to the one that stepped through GB Cycles window and took a bike.

He was convicted of burglary and been sentenced for it. It doesn’t matter what was taken, he was sentenced for the crime(s) committed (Burglary and rioting) NOT what was stolen.

Yes I know the people directly effected by this too – we’re on first name terms, chat about this and that, they give me invaluable advice, have often dropped what they are doing to deal with a mechanical problem I might have had, let me in their workshop to chat as they fix the problem, etc, etc. In fact I will probably pop down later today for some brake pads for my road bike. But this doesn’t mean that I therefore automatically believe a sledgehammer should be used to crack a nut.

As far as the case of the guy who nicked some water is concerned, I am fairly ambivalent. On the face of it, in my opinion, the sentence is quite disproportionate to the crime, especially as it appears he isn’t a bad lad with a string of previous convictions, and he’s shown remorse, admitted his crime, etc.

If however the argument is that the sentence was passed to show a determination by the authorities to treat all activities in connection to looting as extremely serious and stop re-occurrences in the future, then I could possibly warm to that. But I think the suggestion that the sentence is disproportionate to the crime still stands though.

And I would like to see that same level of determination in dealing with the whole range of highly complex issues which were behind the looting – greed, lack of opportunities, consumerism, low wages, lack of respect and empathy, policing, false dreams, idleness, etc, etc. I think however that is sadly less than unlikely, and that only the simplistic knee-jerk reactions will triumph. Guaranteeing more social and public order issues in the future no doubt.

6 months for a £3.50 bottle of water.

Nope – 6 months for Burglary.

Anyone know if/how the value of what he nicked is considered in sentencing?

Simple – if it’s a 300 quid car then it’s mandatory jail time, if it’s a three-grand bike then “it’s only a bike, don’t do it again”…

The article Ransos linked to says this:

Magistrates will not need the exhortation of politicians to get tough with the looters. In many cases, JPs will look at their guidelines and decide that the aggravating feature – the break down in public order – means their powers of sentence are insufficient. The maximum jail term they can hand out for a single offence is six months, reduced by up to a third if the offender pleads guilty. Only half a prison sentence is actually served behind bars: the rest under licence back in the community. Those caught red-handed with flat-screen TVs or designer trainers can expect to find themselves up before a judge in the crown court, with a harsher sentence as a result.

I guess he was lucky it was only a few bottles of water.