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.. back in 2011 when Starmer was DPP and rioters were sentenced to a totsl of 1,800 years under a Tory government, do tell me why these rioters - under a Labour government - will just get a slap on the wrist?
I'm curious.

Since the Prime Minister unlike his predecessor has not been found to have broken the law whilst in public office he will be soft on crime.

And where the previous government’s priority lay

Pension is not a benefit!
It has been paid for over 40-50 years of working and paying contributions towards our pension.
And I still go out to work, albeit part time, because I am not a sponger. But for not much longer as we are clearly going to be penalised. I will pay as little tax as I can from now on.

The state pension is a benefit.

https://www.benefitsguide.co.uk/state-pension/

THE STATE PENSION IS NOT A BENEFIT

We have made the requisite NI payments and some

That's great you've made sufficient NI payments to be able to qualify for a contributions based benefit.

It's still a benefit.

If you’re right Starmer’s done a 180 turn since 2011. He presided over very tough prosecution of rioters then as DPP.

It is.

The 1992 Social Security Contributions and Benefits act is the relevant legislation and is clear that State pensions are a benefit.

There seem to have been a particularly high number of posters today who do not seem to know the law on a variety of areas.

😅😂🤣

It doesn't matter how loudly you shout, a lie is still a lie.

Writing in big doesn't make it true.

You obviously have no understanding of what has been paid in to a pension fund as opposed to a benefit which relies on no payments whatsoever.

Does that include the fully grown men pretending to be children laughing there heads of at us?
Coming soon to a school near you, 36 year old bloke sitting next to your 13 year old daughter

No

At the risk of repeating myself the relevant legislation is the 1992 Act that states that the state pension is a benefit.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1992/4/part/II/crossheading/retirement-pensions-categories-a-and-b

You obviously have no understanding about how state pensions work. There is no fund and some benefits have always had eligibility criteria. The state pension is classed as a benefit.

It used to be known as a type of “insurance based payment” scheme, and was never classed as a benefit. Some years ago, the government of the day decided to call it a benefit, and lump it in with all the rest.

The vast majority will never go in front of a jury.

During the last riots someone got 6 months in jail for nicking a bottle of water.

I expect the same this time.

Even though it costs us £50k Pa to imprison people. 🙄

If the vast majority are charged with crimes that are dealt with in the magistrates court, or because of the weight of evidence against them decide to plead guilty then of course they won't go in front of a jury.

So, professional connection over a number of years or one Youtube, local radio interview….

Professionally, never undecided. I have the text messages of her decision making and minutes of meetings where she definitely challenged others and took hard decisions.

Time will tell but knowing her background she will do all she can.

The only rioters likely to end up in front of a jury are those who decide to plead not guilty after being charged with serious crimes like arson, manslaughter, or assault ABH ('actual bodily harm') - which could result in a longer sentence if found to be 'racially or religiously aggravated'.
People with criminal records/ known involvement in 'extremist' groups are usually screened out of serving in juries. There will be a lot of video evidence of offences being committed (some of these idiots were live-streaming their riots, and there's a lot of CCTV footage) so the chance of juries not convicting is probably pretty low.

ps: Any contributions-based state pension is considered a 'benefit'. So is pension credit, which is only paid to people of state pension age. There are lots of benefits which are only available to British citizens who pay tax etc here. Why are you so wound up about this?

He's condemned what they were doing, he's said they will face the consequences, 24 hr courts (not sure if that is definite) what more should he be doing at the moment?