The Home Secretary is not telling the truth about rioters 'paying the price' ...

[jxpop665]

as it will be the choice of a jury whether or not the accused is found guilty. She is being a very dishonest politician pretending it is her choice.

There could be a significant situation as in the statue of Edward Colston case, that if sufficient people in a jury agree with the underlying motivations the jury may use jury equity to find the accused not guilty.

Given the purported motivation of failed immigration policy is a political issue for a significant proportion of the population, this is an unlikely be possible outcome.

YABU = The Home Secretary is right, they will pay the price.
YANBU = The Home Secretary should be honest as that choice is for a jury.

Hotel accommodation, additional benefits, phones, access to health care, schools - the list goes on. Where do you think the funding is coming from?

you think setting fire to a library and a food bank are justified responses to being unhappy with immigration policy??

WTAF?

Everyone involved in violent rioting ought to be locked up and have the key thrown away.

OP, what's your motivation for asking the question? Apart from naivity and perhaps a bit of Daily Mail stirring.

Would you prefer it if it was the Tories were pursuing the same end result? Someone needs to.

I think there will be a depressingly low number of convictions.

Well, she probably won’t be getting a winter fuel payment so a nice stretch inside at HMP come the cold weather might be handy.

Labour ‘joined-up policy’ - to recall Blair - at its finest.

👍

If it were 15% on a Jury, that's still 11-1.

And it doesn't matter what the motivation is if there's a video of them swarming to kick the shit out of a copper or putting through a Shoezone window.

If she needs it, she'll get it. That's the policy.

Here is a useful explainer as to what happens if there is a hung jury, I suggest you read it, and then perhaps ask MNHQ to delete your misleading post.

https://vhsfletchers.co.uk/what-is-a-hung-jury-what-happens-next/#:~:text=What%20happens%20if%20there%20is,a%20retrial%20to%20take%20place.

please don’t try to tell me that these riots are not at least causally linked to the change in government.

Do you have anything, anything at all, to show this is a factor?

A lot of this was caused by labours immigration policies in the early 2000’s when they proposed that immigration wouldn’t be an issue and no one would mind unless they were terribly right wing and made Hitler look a bit soft. Like when one of the labour government Brown was it? Called a woman a bigot in a hot mike moment.

To be fair, in 2011 when rioting and disorder broke out there were a lot of Labour supporters saying that the violence was a product of wicked government policy. That was 14 months after the 2010 election.

Since - as Gove put it - stealing box-fresh trainers is not a sign of deprivation, I can’t see why people shouldn’t just as stupidly blame Labour for this disorder as Labour fans stupidly blamed the coalition.

That's asylum seekers that haven't been processed so can't work. Net inflows of people leads to an increase in aggregate demand increasing the total spending within the economy. As well as increasing the supply of labour, there will be an increase in the demand for labour – relating to the increased spending within the economy. Ceteris paribus, net migration should lead to an increase in real GDP. The impact on real GDP per capita is less certain.

Or, immigration is paying for your services & pensions.

juries have that right. i work in the court system and i’m a massive proponent of jury nullification

@ArseInTheCoOpWindow prosecutors are always available overnight, it's part of the service. Courts, judges and juries however are not - the cases will go to the back of the long queue, it'll be months/years before they actually get to court.

Given that 2 of the last 3 Conservative Prime Ministers broke the law while they are in office, and seemed to think it was a bit of a jolly jape, I am not sure it is Labour who is soft on crime.

And defence lawyers, I'm sure these idiots would be the first to complain if there is no one to defend them. But weren't they complaining not long ago that Starmer had been a defence lawyer, and that's a bad thing? How could someone defend people that do bad things?

I make no comment on the substance of your point.

But I am cheered to see ceteris paribus used in a post on MN.

Good work!

No need for the army. They just need the mounted police from Glasgow. They police Old Firm matches constantly. Nothing I have seen is any worse than that.

Given the level of ignorance of the criminal justice system after the point of charge demonstrated by some posters on this thread I feel it important to point out the following.

One could be in the area where the riot is taking place, and not be throwing bricks but still committing an offence, if one was for instance encouraging others to do so, or cheering when the police got hit.
Equally one could simply be walking past.

I think past experience of single videos (often edited) of an incident do not always tell the full story.
So I would suggest at present we have no idea whether the lady in question was rioting or not.

Illegal immigrants have no recourse to public funds - so no one is paying for them

The police have dealt with protests and riots in this way for years. You think you got away with it but then you get a knock one morning, often months later. The footage they get is intended to seal prosecutions and loads of people who get caught up won't end up in front of a jury, they'll just plead guilty and get fined/prison

There is a cost to house, feed, supervise, process applications and everything else, surely?

It was a political choice of the last government not to get on with processing those asylum seekers applications.

One could perhaps make an argument that, that policy has contributed to the current situation on the streets.

Are you saying that you think that a lot of the rioters were migrants who arrived 20 years ago?

Otherwise I am struggling to see the link.

I don’t think you will find many taxpayers who are happy to put up with second rate or non- existent services while illegals are being made as comfortable as possible at a cost of billions.