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.

So a significant proportion of people would be 5-10% for me, i.e. 1 in 20 people - after all you only usually need around 35% to form a government. Given the number of people who have raised issues and concerns about all types of migration at the election, what are you saying isn't true?

So exactly what is she going to do as Home Secretary to do that, and even if she does that's woefully short for ensuring those involved pay the price, which is what she said.

I have my doubts about that.

There used to be a wonderful YouTube recording of Yvette Cooper speaking on a local radio station giving it the cosy northerner, contrasted with her stentorian RP tones in the House of Commons. I suspect she’s as slippery and changeable as all the rest. The recording’s been taken down. I imagine at her request.

My favourite description of her though is of a political Mavis Wilton. She’s so undecided about everything.

Still, any Home Secretary should be speaking out against rioters. So, good for her.

A previous poster incorrectly stated about illegal migrants "There is a cost to house, feed, supervise, process applications and everything else, surely?"

Which is untrue since illegal migrants as another poster noted "do not have recourse to public funds".

I am not sure which of the two you think should be changed. One is ignorant nonsense, the other is factual accurate.

"If it were 15% on a jury, that's still 11-1"

15% of 12 is 1.8, so in 4 out of 5 juries it would be 10-2.

Can't have 0.8 of a person, so you have to deal in whole numbers.

They will get caught, over the next few days they will be identified on video, and arrested.
They will be treated in a very similar way to the London rioters - the courts have already been told to prepare in the same way. They will end up in Prison. In the London Riots people got 6 months for stealing crisps.

That those involved think that they aren’t going to get prosecuted, is astounding. Maybe it adds to the idea that they are as thick as mince

The i newspaper reported that she made ‘seven or eight’ failed attempts at asylum before she was granted papers to stay in Britain.

Surely, that's an example of multiple appeals rather than 'slow processing'.

My understanding is that serving 40% of the tariff is not an option for those convicted of violent offences, a change introduced in the last month, by the Labour government.

Generally rain is the answer. I worked in police admin, in the 80s one of my jobs was to prepare the lists of officers to go to riots (we had them back then) on a dry sunny day my lists were longer and preparation of transport, food for the troops etc was also needed. Rain preferably accompanied by a cold spell usually calmed things down.

The other "cure" is to withdraw publicity. I don't know if it was true but we were told the media had agreed to withdraw coverage of the riots and it certainly did seem to disappear from the headlines and this also served to reduce the interest of rioters. Not so easy with the internet.

Yes, indeed, you are talking nonsense.

It is you who is getting wrapped up in semantics by try to pick apart what YC said.

And you are tying yourself up in knots in the process.

They should have already identified over many years the undercurrent of disenfranchisement that always builds and comes out as violent disorder and have put in place measures within their first days of power to resolve the causes of it - there is no grace period, once in power, all successes and failures are down to the government of the day.

Assuming the trigger/tipping point was the Southport tragedy, preventing pre-medicated murder would be a start. Holding the prior government to account by insisting on stamping down on all protests that cause public inconvenience or have the potential to become violent such as those marches in London and just stop oil would have been another, and then ensuring a policy change once in power.

It's all too reactive - the damage has been done; protecting means preventing the arson not punishing after it.

Accents are funny things. My kids laugh when I visit my home city and suddenly have the broad accent of my childhood, not to mention that apparently if I lost my temper with them I suddenly have the Irish accent of my parents. None of it false, none of it put on.

I may have missed it, can you provide a link to where Just Stop Oil have burnt down buildings or vehicles and thrown bricks at the police?

I love how much Fred Sirieix's French accent has become more pronounced in his reporting of the Olympics in France.

Do you have any evidence that he parents were asylum seekers?

Wikipedia states that her parents emigrated from Mauritius and Kenya.

It can sound so false but it does just genuinely happen, to some of us at least.

The sentences handed down after the 2011 riots will give some indication. And there are new laws that have been passed which will also apply England riots one year on: Culprits jailed for 1,800 years - BBC News

I’d be very surprised if most of them could spell ‘job’ never mind actually have one…

ah okay right OP I've got it now

You want the government and police to be psychic and pre-empt all violent crime

You want an end to any kind of lawful protest

cuts in police numbers under the previous government don't matter because, within 4 weeks, the new government should have recruited, trained and sent our 100's of new police officers

I mean none of the responsibility lies with the right wing nut jobs doing all the rioting

Bullshit. Governments do not changeover with a clean slate. Any idiot who thinks that isn't worthy of an opinion on the matter. What would you have had the Labour government do in 3 weeks to prevent racist rioting? Actual suggestions only please.
JSO are disruptive PIA (and have been dealt some harsh sentences btw) but they stop far short of arson.

Hmm, I think you’re being a bit sly here.

The PP (me) who said "There is a cost to house, feed, supervise, process applications and everything else, surely?" was questioning how people who are judged to be illegal immigrants after their application haven’t cost money. If they hadn’t made applications there’d be no reason to house, feed and process them.

After an adverse determination, of course, an illegal immigrant isn’t entitled to anything.

Maybe the simplest way to put it is this: there clearly is a cost in dealing with asylum claims, which we should honour because we’re a decent country; but those who wrongly claim asylum create irrecoverable cost.

I’m not aware that any government has turned its back on international asylum agreements. But there must be an issue in the background or Starmer wouldn’t have promised to “smash the gangs” and speed up deportations.

I’m still waiting for the PP (not you) who claimed that Labour has sent away more illegal immigrants in the last three weeks than the Tories managed in the last year, to come up with a source.

Has there been a change since 18 July?

Prisoners to be released early will include violent offenders serving sentences under four years

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/07/18/labour-release-prisoners-early/

Exactly. And there's not a snowballs chance in hell any of these people will be sentenced to 4 years+.

I can see a few slaps on the wrist dished out, nothing more.

Sorry, but this makes me so angry and frustrate but please learn about the judicial system, it is one of the 3 branches of government and so important to our collective daily life… I don’t expect everyone here to be the secret barrister but for goodness sake understand the fundamentals of how parliament and the judiciary works… because I really believe a root cause of a lot of disinformation and idiotic commentary is peoples lack of knowledge around how they are governed and their part in it as an individual and a part of collective society and this why we’re in such a bloody awful mess..

I don’t disagree that services like the police, courts and prisons/probabtion are underfunded, along with other elements such as the NHS, social care and mental health services and therefore the country is struggling.

But… to hang last night pretty much solely on the fault of immigrants (illegal or otherwise) is so reductive an unhelpful, because if it turns out not to be the root cause, stopping it won’t fix anything and the money spent on it will have been wasted not fixing the problem… hanging an issue on a single entity rarely gives a full picture or a comprehensive solution. There is so much more as to why government services are struggling and people feel so frustrated (which comes from a place of fear/worry.)

Also what makes my mind boggle is that the incidents and riots last night are not, in the majority, the fault of the current government who have been in power for 31 days… how the hell are they meant to have fixed anything in that time?

Going back to comments around of guilt of individuals arrested and the parties responsible for deciding their guilt… I really think people need to understand the difference in types of offences that will have been committed last night and how they could be tried once charged…

A magistrates’ court normally handles cases known as ‘summary offences’, for example motoring offences, minor criminal damage, common assault (not causing significant injury) and public order offences, so this will a large proportion of the offences from the disorder last night. Magistrates courts can also deal with some of the more serious offences, such burglary, GBH and possession of a offensive weapon as they are either way offences that can be heard either in a magistrates’ court or a Crown Court.

The most serious of cases, such as manslaughter, murder, robbery and rape are known as indictable offences and can old be tried at crown court where a jury of peers decides guilt and a judge (either a senior circuit judge or a high court judge)

It amazes me how often people are surprised that there isn't a trial if someone pleads guilty, which could of course happen in their first court appearance, which will always be in a magistrates court.