Re~Stirred Forum

I've checked the Police Authority website and no actual meeting dates are shown. There are public consultation meetings in each local authority area, for example Birmingham Council Chamber, 16/9 1-3 PM and 13/10/2011 6-8 PM.

Details on:http://www.west-midlands-pa.gov.uk/publicconsultationmeetings.asp

There is an option to make a short representation to the Authority, at its main meetings and committee meetings; details on:http://www.west-midlands-pa.gov.uk/haveyoursay.asp

The Chief Constable is no doubt right in asking for compassion to be shown to rioters but those words may not be what many citizens want to hear.

Would he have stated those words if one or more of his officers had, god forbid, been killed.

Would he also ask for compassion for those criminals that have raped or sexually assaulted in his police area?

The shocking statistic on the news today is, “There is a greater chance of being a victim of rape or sexual assault in Coventry than anywhere else in the United Kingdom”.

This was disclosed in a report commissioned by Coventry City Council.

One of the reasons being put forward for this high level is as a result of the high level of deprivation in Coventry.

What would the reaction be if the Chief Constable called for compassion towards the rapists?

I would like to ask the Police Authority and the Chief Constable what they are doing to protect Coventry citizens from rape and sexual assault.

Or maybe a Chief Constable needs to be appointed that would ensure that no part of his policing area would have such a statistic attached to it.

I don't really see why he takes it upon himself to say this - it's none of his business. It is for the judiciary to decide on sentencing, irrespective of what he thinks. Indeed, why doesn't he get a move on with making sure that everyone responsible for the riots is brought to justice, rather than making these irrelevant statements? If he has time to spare, there are plenty of other things to be getting on with - like, why have no in-roads been made in to tackling gangs?

Indeed. However, three innocent citizens were killed. That's what makes these riots so serious - everyone who partook in rioting and looting helped to determine events that led to those three deaths.

His job is to keep public order and nick wrong uns. He's sounding like a freaking prison governor - and that's not a compliment.

The alternative argument Dom and DT is that the Police are behaving like the Fire Brigade have been. The FB used to be reactive but have found its far better to be proactive in preventing fires than merely fighting them. Its been a real success story of the last twenty years, this change in behaviour.

Likewise, one of the successes in reducing crime has been in reducing opportunities through community schemes such as alley-gating. I don't think that this is too much of a stretch for Sims to be worried about long-term costs and increased crime. Better to look at the bigger picture?

I completely agree that the police should be working to prevent crime. However, once someone has committed an offence and is being tried for this it is for the judiciary to decide upon sentences, not for the chief constable to intervene. We rightly have a separation between police and judiciary - it's not for him to start trying to bridge the gap with his comments.

Incidentally, I don't disagree that custodial sentences would be completely inappropriate for many of the lesser offenders. However, sentences should be "fair" and in the public interest - I don't see any need to show "compasion", I fail to see any mitigating circumstances to justify what these people did. They certainly showed no compassion either to their immediate victims or the broader population of the city.

I don't remember you objecting to Cameron calling for custodial sentences for anyone involved in the rioting. If he can say that then Chris Sims can call for compassion. I know who I prefer.


A woman was sentenced to five months' imprisonment in London yesterday for receiving stolen goods. She had been nowhere near the riots but her flatmate had given her a pair of beach shorts as a gift. They had been looted. That was not an abnormal sentence. It's what is going on with people who are pleading guilty and it will happen even more with the people who are being referred to crown court for sentencing. I think that people who actually rioted - broke into shops and damaged them and especially the people who set fire to them - should feel the force of the law. But people are being trated harshly and sent to prison when it is completely inappropriate.

Yeah, may be he shouldn't have said that - though I think it is relatively less inappropriate coming from an elected politician than a police chief.

I don't think we disagree on this then?

No, it's more so. Politicians set the parameters within which the police work by making laws, and despite recent legislation will influence the judiciary more than senior policemen. For example, these harsh sentences certainly reflect what Cameron and May have said. We do agree on those, yes; glad to see that.

My knowledge of law is very limited - a superficial knowledge really of few statutes relating to my profession. Nonetheless, my understanding of criminal law is that a person must not only have committed the guilty act (actus reus), but they must have intended to do so (mens rea). In the case you describe it is not entirely clear whether the woman was aware where the shorts had come from - but it seems possible she may have not known, in which case surely there would have been no case?

Indeed yes, but she pleaded guilty, which should have reduced her sentence. She probably did that because she expected a fine and/or a conditional discharge.

True but 'I didn't mean to do it' has been the cry of the accused down the ages.

It is a question of evidence. Where did her friend find the shorts? Was it outside a looted shop? Did they have a price tag? Were there looters about? Why didn't she hand them in? What was her demeanour in the witness box? Etc. Etc.

In the end it comes down to whether or not the magistrates believe the 'I didn't know' defence. If you weren't present it's hard to assess the validity of that defence.

Its an extraordinary sentence for receiving a £2 pair of shorts. Was she heard at 4:30am? I can't explain it other than a lack of sleep on those sentencing her.

Double post -apologies.

Harsh, I agree. But it's actually a £2 pair of shorts which have been looted at a time of great unrest. A sentencer is entitled to take that into account.

Given that the maximum magistrates can impose is 6 months, she probably did. If she (or her lawyer) was aware of the other cases going through the court it would have been obvious that a non-custodial sentence was very unlikely.

Richard, you're assuming that people like this are as self-confident and articulate as we are and can take reasoned and informed decisions under pressure. They aren't and can't.

And here's another worrying one:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-14551582
Sounds absolutely right at first, doesn't it, four years for incitement to riot. But then you notice they live in Warrington, the prosecution was in Cheshire where no riots took place, and they had previous clean records at ages 21 and 22. Can this have been a series of jokey Facebook messages in bad taste, like the man who was stuck in a plane stack and texted "Why doesn't someone burn the airport down?" and now has a criminal record for his mistimed joke. I fear this is starting to turn very nasty. Two wrongs don't make a right.

I think we are both assuming.

and watch out for the appeals galore

I mean 4 years for a facebook message, jeez, lawyers will be queuing up

Bernard, it makes no sense to call them 'guidelines' when you agree with the suggested sentencing levels and 'directives' when you don't.

I think we are all agreed that theft by looting deserves a higher sentence. Thus to avoid inconsistencies across the country the guidelines have to be adjusted.

As Ian suggests, there is an argument to be had, in the appeal courts, about the level of that adjustment and we can all contribute. However, given the continued robust independence of the judiciary (see for example, the control order cases) I think that any suggestion that they will obey orders from Cameron and May is unfounded.

It is the action of attempting to organise a riot that is the criminal act. The fact that it fails is not in itself relevant.

That is not a logical comment. What Ian and I are arguing is not whether an offence was committed, but whether the sentence passed was too severe.

Cheshire was unaffected by the riots. The damage that was caused by riots elsewhere was immense. I completely understand the determination of the Cheshire judiciary to make an example of these two lads and thereby send out a clear deterrent to others about the consequences of getting involved in riots.

and also if you had Griffin spouting bile and almost incitment to racial violence why has he not be charged ?

Facebook is not the deliverer of what happened, nothing was organised on Facebook and this may have been two lads having a joke which I saw plenty of.

the twitter joke about the airport guy is spot on and I suspect soon enough these guys will be out with a caution.

and how money has that wasted for nothing.

Bernard, there were no guidelines on sentencing for looting. These have been given and are being followed - why should they not be? (Incidentally, you twice mention 'trivial' cases of looting. I don't think there is such a thing).

As to the independence of the judiciary and your wild claims of a police state - let's see what the Court of Appeal has to say about the level of sentencing.

Will this be appealed as well?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/f ... ebook.html