Anyone feeling slightly uncomfortable with the scale of the sentencing after the riots?

The sentencing is harsh and that’s because they want to send a clear message. It’s more about halting further riots by showing would-be rioters what awaits them if they take that path.

Yabu. The riots were fascist in impetus. It's a peculiarly European problem and wherever it rears up it needs to be tackled vigorously and immediately.

Yes I agree with this. There was a case recently where someone who was driving drunk and on drugs killed three people - 2 children and an adult- but got 12 years, with the expectation they will probably only serve 6.

It wouldn't be my choice of direction, but I think it's happening regardless; look how many people are thrilled with the idea of people being locked up for posting something on Facebook. I very much do agree that violent offenders should be jailed in all cases, but someone being sent to prison for over two years for kicking and rocking a police van is ridiculous, especially when paedophiles get suspended sentences for actual rape.

It is absolutely possible to build a society without free speech, look at China for example. It has been tried many times before and invariably ended with some people (eventually usually the majority) leading horrifically unpleasant lives. But for those who are not sent away, life's pretty good - at least until it isn't. Those wanting people locked up for having the wrong views presumably believe they'll be in the latter group.

Chinese people have a far better quality of life than they did a few decades ago, they're at the very forefront of innovation and are economically and politically unrivalled outside America (actually surpassing America by some measures). And they've achieved it absurdly quickly. Many Chinese people will think their astonishing ascent absolutely worth the misery inflicted on those who don't tow the line, and quite probably if we follow the same path, we will feel the same. I don't know that many of the people on here relishing the idea of people being put away for disliking immigration are going to suddenly regret it, especially if their lives continue to tick peacefully along. When we read about people who have suffered under fascism or tyranny it's from people the who oppose it, or after the entire society collapses and people start to realise they were wrong.

There are undeniably problems with the notion of free speech in the age of the internet, which I think do need to be addressed. But I get the impression the majority would prefer to just banish people who say or think the wrong things - and as I believe in democracy, I feel I have to respect that even if I don't agree. I of course am not suggesting the current arrests make us the same as China, Russia etc, but it is the first step on that path and we can choose to follow it or not.

@Noname99 And what exactly were a 13 and two 12 year olds doing in a riot and where were their parents at the time? If the children were looting shops then well, doesn't bode well for their future and a custodial sentence was inevitable somewhere along the line! Everyone knows the riots were the absolute lawless and entitled dregs of society using any old excuse for their thuggery, thievery and mayhem. Many even trashing their own high streets and good hard working roles livelihoods. So it's hard to feel any sympathy whatsoever. They got what was coming to them. Doubt they'll serve full sentences any of them, it will be quietly reduced or quashed when the spotlight is off.

The vast majority of these crimes are committed by NON immigrants.

Those protests weren't risking destabilising the entire country. Widespread rioting needs a completely different approach.

The verbal abuse is a criminal offence in itself and in context of a riot it will be seen as inflaming the situation. Why should anyone be on the receiving end of that? It is threatening, frightening and could have escalated the situation for all we know.

I agree with OP. I’m pleased to see a clear message being sent and that there are consequences for this terrible behaviour…. But I just read somebody getting 2.5 years custodial sentence for verbal abuse, and it does make me question it. Especially when you compare to what people get for possessing indecent images of children, domestic violence and drink driving.

Yes, I did know that.

My point was that @scalt was criticising the way Keir Starmer has responded to the riots and the subsequent sentencing, as a new PM, and I asked if they felt the same about the way David Cameron responded to the 2011 riots as a fairly new PM at the time. As other people have noted, the response / sentencing in 2011 was similar to what’s happening now.

What do 12 and 13 year olds get a free pass? They know right from wrong and are probably yobs. They need to face the consequences of their actions.

Exactly.
About bloody time that there was a crackdown on these vicious oagpfs, they deserve everything thrown at them.
There’s been a far too soft approach for too long.

It feels like that because that’s exactly what it’s supposed to feel like. The political point being made, very deliberately and publicly, is that this government won’t stand for rioting and violent unrest.

Yabu

Let's agree to disagree.
I don't believe for a minute that people went on a rampage because of whatever they read online, that is not the cause.
If you teach and control right thinking rather than encourage critical thinking you create a population that is receptive to indoctrination. Wherever it might come from.

Not if it is inciting people to riot/violence/civil disturbance/is racist and targeting people. Do you not understand that SM was the reason this flared up so quickly when misinformation was posted?

What happened at these ‘protests’ was nothing to do with ‘free speech’. It was violent disorder and riot, and needed to be treated as such. To compare the sentencing with Russia and China’s ‘re-education camps’ is to make light of those countries’ human rights abuses. Give your head a wobble.

I'm very uncomfortable. Everyone deserves a fair trial. Are people being advised to plead guilty when that would result in an unfair outcome? Cleveland Police posted a vile tweet revelling in eat seems to be a very vulnerable man being sentenced to 26 months. One woman pleaded not guilty but is being held on remand like a dangerous offender until the beginning of September for the massive crime of buying eggs. She was accused of buying them to use in the riot - but what if the accusation isn't true?!

I definitely wouldn't be surprised if there were many miscarriages of justice in the political zeal to make an example of people, no doubt just like in 2011. That's not what the law is for.

Maybe it will stop threads on here telling people to riot, there was a spate of them because of the cost of living a while back.

The issue is that this level of action is probably not sustainable long term. I agree with it, but it does feel like a political move to prove a point

@TheNuthatch

Its been made very clear who will be released early.
No one convicted of a serious crime, and after serving at least 40% of their sentence as opposed to the current 50%.
It will be people serving short sentences for non violent offences

and probably a whole bunch of women inside for shop lifting when a non custodial sentence would have been better in the first place

After the police incident at Manchester Airport we had some minor protest. That was due to irresponsible information sharing - not vastly different in principle to shouting fire in a theatre. The current protests similarly have similar causes and organisation stimulating the issue (though mostly just assholes who want to break the law).

If curbs to free speech involve online platforms stopping idiots talking garbage that would be welcome.

Previously newspapers would verify and fact check. They didn't need to compete with irresponsible viral bullshit on Facebook and TikTok. They may have printed bullshit but if it wasn't true there were mechanisms to hold them accountable and lawyers would advise on what could and couldn't be printed prior to publication. Online bullshitters can say what they want. That doesn't help public order. As a member of the public I prefer those people who chose to disseminate information to be accountable - that's not the case at the moment.

She was arrested so imagine she feels worse than embarrassed, quite rightly.

You do know that the director of public prosecutions at that time was Kier Starmer don’t you? That’s what he got his “sir” for