Advertisement

loader

Talk

Advanced search

Did anyone read this article in The Times yesterday on the London bombings?

(261 Posts)
oliveoil Thu 14-Jul-05 09:51:19

I think it is spot on, what do you think? It's a bit long.

here it is

northerner Thu 14-Jul-05 10:07:30

Tis very long Olive. Got the general gist of it though, and I agree too.

Time this country cracked down.

muminlondon Thu 14-Jul-05 10:10:19

Yes, good article. I was irritated by this article yesterday - I thought his disclaimer was too weak. But he also seemed to suggest it was 'sassy' and 'cool' for young British muslims to be angry and radical rather than moderate and sensible like their parents. Also a weird lack of compassion from the colleague of a guy thought to have been killed in the bombings.

oliveoil Thu 14-Jul-05 10:12:42

Not only the cracking down bit, although I do agree with that, but the media going into far far too much grisly detail. And the wallowing in other peoples grief.

There is a two minute silence today at midday and I don't agree with that either. I think a private pause or prayer would be enough. There is no end to the coverage.

fishfinger Thu 14-Jul-05 10:13:14

ooh but alice miles i s generally a twat imfo

oliveoil Thu 14-Jul-05 10:14:57

We are disagreeing today aren't we?

<rolls up sleeves>

I can't recall any other articles of hers tbh. But I thought this one was really good.

So ner.

fishfinger Thu 14-Jul-05 10:16:16

havent read artlicle BUT she wrot e a shite one about magistrates courts

muminlondon Thu 14-Jul-05 10:16:42

I do agree with the two minute silence - as a demonstration of people on the streets. Two minutes is hardly a huge chunk of your time.

northerner Thu 14-Jul-05 10:18:16

I always agree with 2 minutes silence. Is a mark of respect.

fishfinger Thu 14-Jul-05 10:18:16

June 22, 2005

Explain how this is justice
Alice Miles
No juries for complex fraud trials? Fine. No juries for thousands of women sent to jail? Disgraceful





I’M NOT SURE why the Attorney-General insisted yesterday that the Government remains “strongly in favour of trial by jury in the vast majority of cases”. I suppose he must have meant the vast majority of fraud cases, because the vast majority of all criminal cases are already tried without a jury. In 2003-04, some 1.3 million cases were tried in the magistrates’ courts, without a jury, and about 95,000 went to the Crown Court. That’s fewer than one in ten.

When civil liberties campaigners protest about ending the centuries-old right to trial by jury, traceable back to Magna Carta, blah blah blah, for some reason they never mention this.

There is something not very sexy, I suppose, about all those shoplifters and people who couldn’t pay their fines coming up before the magistrates. And the women — particularly the women. A sharp increase in the number of women jailed — the female prison population has almost tripled over the past decade, a far sharper rise than among men — has been led by low-level, poverty-based crimes such as shoplifting. These are not your multimillion-pound frauds.

In a detailed report last year, Women and the Criminal Justice System, the Fawcett Society examined the facts. Theft and handling stolen goods account for 60 per cent of female offending, compared with 36 per cent of male. Many of these are crimes of desperation. A Department of Health report two years ago found that “women are more likely than men to commit ‘acquisitive’ crimes, eg shoplifting and fraud, through financial hardship particularly in relation to children”. It is because the crimes are relatively minor and tend to be non-violent that more than 70 per cent of women sent to prison are on short sentences of less than 12 months.

And many of these are sent into custody by magistrates, without being convicted by a jury. The most recent figures held by the Home Office, for 2003, show that 5,701 women were sent to prison by magistrates compared with 3,109 by a crown court. Thousands of women a year are being imprisoned, and more sent to jail on remand, so not even convicted, without having been tried by a jury which might have sympathised and released them.

fishfinger Thu 14-Jul-05 10:18:30

( sorry to hijack)

wot a crock of shit

oliveoil Thu 14-Jul-05 10:18:59

mmmmm, I'm not saying I am cross cos I won't get served in M&S (!) it's not the time that bothers me, just that this will get tons of coverage and their will be sobbing people etc and the media can trawl this all over again. I just don't think it is appropriate.

muminlondon Thu 14-Jul-05 10:22:46

wonder if she's ever done jury service? it's not like in the movies. People come and leave with their prejudices intact. And lose 2 weeks' of time and often their salary in the process.

fishfinger Thu 14-Jul-05 10:22:56

i HTINK ITS SAD
BUT its "only" 50 poeple imagine a bus crash - that woudlnt get all this coverage
or bhopal - seven THOUSAND lives!!!

example of the mondon centric media

fishfinger Thu 14-Jul-05 10:23:17

yes and do the poepl whoa re on juries!

fishfinger Thu 14-Jul-05 10:24:09

( sorry will mreove jury syetme argu8ument from this thread)

anyway alice miles=twat QED

saadia Thu 14-Jul-05 10:27:21

I don't think it's fair to blame the parents or the communities - I mean paedophiles and serial killers also grow up in homes and communities where people are oblivious to what they're doing. Nobody blames their parents or their communities.

Blu Thu 14-Jul-05 10:28:02

I think Alice miles article is unremarkable, and shot through with illogicality.

Papillon Thu 14-Jul-05 10:30:15

I think it was Edam who said as a journalist on another thread talking about the explosions - that people want to tell their story. So its not necessarily entirely media stimulated.

Ilike the 2 mins silence - an outward show of solidatory for the people

I think heavy control brings strife. I resent it and perhaps that resentfulness is why people of muslim countries retailate. There are pacified means of resistance which I am totally PRO but the extreme communicative response adn effect of the war on terror and threatening countries is violence to reflect the violence.

muminlondon Thu 14-Jul-05 10:30:43

I did find it mawkish when people cried for Princess Diana. But I feel angry that London was attacked by a bunch of young men who weren't able to imagine that their bombs were going off where muslims and many other communities prayed, lived and worked. I want to demonstrate solidarity with Londoners.

fishfinger Thu 14-Jul-05 10:31:30

Hmm bet londoners woudln't do that if it happened eleswhere

Blu Thu 14-Jul-05 10:31:42

Indeed, Saadia, and the young are the ones OUTSIDE 'the gehtto' which Ms Miles describes - they have broken out of the 'keep quiet and your head down' generation that the other journalist describes.

Timothy Mcveigh....

Everyone is using this to peddle and prove their own pet theories.

Me too.

Blu Thu 14-Jul-05 10:33:57

ff - that is really really unfair.

Human beings are human beings, wherever they live.

But as numerous postings have demonstrated, people naturally feel more edgy when it is on their doorstep. Hence the sudden - and understandable fear when B'ham was evacuated, when Luton was affected - people feel th heat when it is close to them.

muminlondon Thu 14-Jul-05 10:36:58

er, no, Londoners wouldn't be spontaneously demonstrating their pride in London as a multicultural city attacked by provincial madmen if an attack had happened elsewhere. That would be silly.

oliveoil Thu 14-Jul-05 10:40:45

Also, the media today is full of coverage of the bombers. What happens to their families? Some of them were married with children, are they now ostracised (sp?) from their communities? Too much coverage, please stop.

I have been given some work to do <thud> so will have to leave this thread for now.

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now