No, they are not but they tend to evoke very similar reactions in us. The human being is generally not a very reliable thing.

Don't you have some boarding up, packing, looking at the other thread that you started or something else to do than poke holes in my flimsy argument here? (Or what is it going to cost?)

Okay, I am just going to fall back the thing that started this.....there are good and bad policemen out there and try not to over complicate and justify as is in my nature.

But you don't have to smash a kid who gives himself up- you hold him, cuff him and take him away if you have evidence he has done wrong. If he resists and there are 8 of you, it's down hard on the ground, cuff and take away. A lot better for public relations, no, however tempting in the circumstances.

Part of the outrage that people feel is that in the UK people get prosecuted loads of doing wrong things, for violence and all of the rest. However the police very seldom get prosecuted for any infractions. None of the officers involved in any of the controversies over the last couple of year have seen a public court.

Many ask where is the fairness in that?

So that's why you think you're so good in bed.

Read that a guy got jailed for 6 months for stealing a £3.50 bottle of water.

Not sure if it's good they are going 0 tolerance on them or it's a bit ridiculous.

Linky poo: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...ix-months.html

It's the act of looting that is being punished, the value of the loot isn't relevant. Police having orders to shoot looters on sight is not uncommon in some countries, so this looter got off easy.

Look up Peter Osborne's column re UK Society being rotten at BOTH top and bottom. Food for thought.

Wandsworth council have been the first to serve and eviction notice to a woman whose son was convicted of looting. Will be interesting to see how this one plays out, going to be a long process and wonder if it will be successful in the end.

So they are evicting the whole family because the son was looting?

Yes seems that way. According to the BBC News tonight, the son was looting and his mother has been served the order. Has to go through a court process to be upheld so will be interesting to see if it goes through or not.

It's a good thing. Looting has massive societal detriment that normal thievery does not. As J_T said, police in many countries have to shoot looters on sight. We can't be looking at what's being looted.

I don't think the outcome matters in the end. I personally don't think it (eviction, cuts in benefits, etc) actually solves any specific problem.

Yes. Actions have consequences:

	Quote:
	Under the terms of the agreement, which applies to all the council's rented accommodation, all tenants, their household members and visitors are forbidden from a range of criminal and anti-social activities. Breaches of the agreement render them liable to eviction

AND

It sends a very loud and unambiguous message to offenders about how they are viewed by the vast majority of decent, law-abiding people in this country.


AND, whilst I'm on my soapbox...

Serious respect to the Salford mother here

Salford looting: Boy handed in to police by mother

An unfit Mother looking for a bit of limelight.

Olympic ambassador Chelsea Ives was seen on camera destroying a police car. I think it further accentuates that these riots weren't about social injustice. I mean this girl had a potentially great career ahead of her

She was reported by her parents

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...-day-ever.html

Really, Mr Hatter? Is that what you really think? That's very unlike you, I must say. You'll give the "guy with live firearm stopped specifically by armed police" the huge benefit of any doubt, but you'll condemn a mother's mothering abilities and motives so quickly?


I would have expected better from you

Better form me ? As a Father I would have dealt with it within the home. decisively, on the remote chance that the sum of my upbringing would have yielded such a yob.

She turned him in to get some cheap shot of faux respect and she will regret her actions later. She has probably damaged the Mother/Son relationship with a matter that should have been dealt with within the home.

I am not surprised you are confused, there is no relationship between a man being killed and what the Mother did, unless of course you refer to cheap shots. The British disease of "Look at goody two shoes me".

The boy has betrayed family trust, but what the Mother has done is inexcusable. Grassed her own son up, failed to deal with the matter and worst of all, a failure in parenting that got her to this situation.


...and as for giving that man the benefit of the doubt, that says to me you have not and condemned him without due process.
Of course he gets the benefit of the doubt, he is/was innocent until proven guilty despite your latching on to popular hearsay that he might not be fit to enjoy his legal rights.

Ah, you obviously have some additional knowledge of the event to which I am not party - I bow to your more-informed diagnosis...


Skanky Salford scrubber, string 'er up, I say!!! Worra failure of a parent! Hangin's too good for her, I tell you.

I think the child(?) was correctly presented to the direct and real relationship between the deed and the law, not dealt a confusing emotional family confrontation with multiple escape routes and relenting. The mother did not betray the boy, she introduced him to adulthood with its responsibilities and consequences. Had she not done it with this incident, sooner or later he would have found out the hard way that you can't hide behind momma's skirts your whole life.

As opposed obviously to the police who doesn't enjoy that luxury. Considering how they have a long history of public executions, I tend to understand that. I mean they've shot a guy ONCE!

Watching Young Peoples' question time on BBC3 now - interesting.

Also- (I never thought I'd totally agree with this guy):

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/pe...as-the-bottom/