• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Harry Potter actor jailed for 2 years over London riots

Agreed. It's not like he raped or killed anyone.

Just a dumb kid, with the rest of his life to change.
In civilized countries arson can be met with deadly force. He was capable of it as he had the instrument of terror in his hand. Should we let the underwear bomber off after two years? It would be a shame to ruin his life. He won't come out as a model citizen either.
 
Oh my. I always thought there was a "punishment-thingie" there.

yes well being stuck in prison is itself a punishment but the whole point is to make them better people whilst they are inside, something states like Texas are yet to grasp
 
the whole thing is a mess! Thats why I dont really think it would be very fair to slam these young men/women in prison for a long period of time. I would personally prefer to see community service handed out and help these kids do some good in the areas that they live and hopefully learn from their actions.
He was doing community service when he was captured. One Molotov cocktail anyone? They are great for cleaning the streets and removing unsightly buildings. Or has it been misreported that he had a Molotov cocktail in his hands?
 
Last edited:
yes well being stuck in prison is itself a punishment but the whole point is to make them better people whilst they are inside, something states like Texas are yet to grasp
I will let Texas decide for Texas.

How many people, other than those on television shows, actually "come out better people"?
 
I will let Texas decide for Texas.

How many people, other than those on television shows, actually "come out better people"?

I dont know maybe you shoulod take a poll! One of the key reasons behind the London riots was because young people in London felt isolated from soceity, left out and without a future. You stick them in prison for 5 years + how do you think they are going to feel when they come out? Obviously in some cases they need to do some seriosu time but on the most part I think cextended community service would be much more effective and would save the tax payer money!
 
I haven't read the story but I'm asking this more as a hypothetical rather than a defense of this guy.

So do you mean that even if he was not personally involved in the theft or property destruction, as in he didn't actually steal anything nor did he destroy anyone's property, you still would find him guilty and imprison him because he was part of the crowd?
He was hit with three charges and they went lenient on the possession of the Molotov cocktail. Frankly, you get arrested for participating in a right, you get what you deserve. Protesting is one thing. Most of the people werent there protesting, they used an incident as an excuse to be ****heads.
 
It was a small part. Perhaps his assets should be seized to make restitution.
If they could prove which damages he caused, absolutely. And my guess is they would think twice about the next time they decided they felt within thier rights to burn down peoples businesses...people that had no role in the incident.
 
In civilized countries arson can be met with deadly force. He was capable of it as he had the instrument of terror in his hand. Should we let the underwear bomber off after two years? It would be a shame to ruin his life. He won't come out as a model citizen either.
In civilised countries, the concept of rehabilitation should take precedence over punishment. Especially where any transgression does no harm to life and limb.

How you equate attempting to bring down an aircraft using plastic explosives, with ownership of an unlit petrol bomb, is a matter best known to yourself.
 
In civilised countries, the concept of rehabilitation should take precedence over punishment. Especially where any transgression does no harm to life and limb.
Let's agree to disagree. If someone I have attachments to is harmed and there is no punishment, only rehabilitation, I will take the matter into my own hands. That is the whole point behind a justice system that punishes. We do not want a return to blood feuds.

How you equate attempting to bring down an aircraft using plastic explosives, with ownership of an unlit petrol bomb, is a matter best known to yourself.
I shall hope that you are never hired to connect the dots. Your imagination is severely stunted. In each case the devise was capable of doing horrendous damage including killing people who did not need killing. In neither case was anybody actually harmed. No harm no foul perhaps in your world. In mine if you carry a device intended to destroy property and kill people in a place where, had you effectively used it, property would have been destroyed and people possibly killed, then I believe you ought to be severely punished.

Does that clear it up for you?
 
Let's agree to disagree. If someone I have attachments to is harmed and there is no punishment, only rehabilitation, I will take the matter into my own hands. That is the whole point behind a justice system that punishes. We do not want a return to blood feuds.
The you can feel good on both counts.

No one was harmed. And incarceration is punishment.

I shall hope that you are never hired to connect the dots. Your imagination is severely stunted.
:lol:

In each case the devise was capable of doing horrendous damage including killing people who did not need killing. In neither case was anybody actually harmed. No harm no foul perhaps in your world. In mine if you carry a device intended to destroy property and kill people in a place where, had you effectively used it, property would have been destroyed and people possibly killed, then I believe you ought to be severely punished.

Does that clear it up for you?
Except the Underwear Bomber confessed he had every intention of slaughtering everyone on board. The judge in this case made admission of his belief, that this guy had no intention of using the petrol bomb.

Slight difference.

I find your (bolded) comments most curious, for someone who lives in a nation where firearms are legal.
 
The you can feel good on both counts.

Except the Underwear Bomber confessed he had every intention of slaughtering everyone on board. The judge in this case made admission of his belief, that this guy had no intention of using the petrol bomb.

Slight difference.
Perhaps to you. Do you think the underwear bomber might have said the same thing if he had been captured before he tried to set off his device?

I find your (bolded) comments most curious, for someone who lives in a nation where firearms are legal.
I suppose that is the difference between citizens like me and subjects like you. I understand why it would be a curious thing to one who does not think of himself as the sovereign who gives up a little liberty to the federal government for various purposes as outlined in the Constitution. We do not give up the right to bear arms and the right to self defense is never denied.

Or are you claiming the the Molotov cocktail is a firearm? Awesome.
 
Perhaps to you.
No. To the courts also.

Do you think the underwear bomber might have said the same thing if he had been captured before he tried to set off his device?
Do you think Hitler had a secret interest in the cultivation of mangos?

I suppose that is the difference between citizens like me and subjects like you. I understand why it would be a curious thing to one who does not think of himself as the sovereign who gives up a little liberty to the federal government for various purposes as outlined in the Constitution. We do not give up the right to bear arms and the right to self defense is never denied.

Or are you claiming the the Molotov cocktail is a firearm? Awesome.
It was your definition. You tell me.

And I wasn't curious about your belief in the right to bear arms. Only your evident confusion concerning the overlap.
 
No confusion at all. Except perhaps on your part.
That's great. Then perhaps you might condescend to respond to my post in full. Or not. Your call.

I see you're another practitioner of omitting relevant content. Is this like, a rite of passage in this place, or what? If it's a private joke, I wish someone would let me in on it. I'm beginning to feel paranoid.
 
That's great. Then perhaps you might condescend to respond to my post in full. Or not. Your call.

I see you're another practitioner of omitting relevant content. Is this like, a rite of passage in this place, or what? If it's a private joke, I wish someone would let me in on it. I'm beginning to feel paranoid.
You offered nothing else of value to comment on.
 
Perhaps to you. Do you think the underwear bomber might have said the same thing if he had been captured before he tried to set off his device?


I suppose that is the difference between citizens like me and subjects like you. I understand why it would be a curious thing to one who does not think of himself as the sovereign who gives up a little liberty to the federal government for various purposes as outlined in the Constitution. We do not give up the right to bear arms and the right to self defense is never denied.

Or are you claiming the the Molotov cocktail is a firearm? Awesome.

what do you mean by subject?
 
what do you mean by subject?
In the United States the people are sovereign citizens who give up a small portion of their liberty in order to accomplish things through government. The power comes from the people.
Elsewhere the people are not sovereign. They are subjects of the state. They exist for the state, not the state for them.
 
In the United States the people are sovereign citizens who give up a small portion of their liberty in order to accomplish things through government. The power comes from the people.
Elsewhere the people are not sovereign. They are subjects of the state. They exist for the state, not the state for them.

* pass me the sick bag
 
I dont know maybe you shoulod take a poll! One of the key reasons behind the London riots was because young people in London felt isolated from soceity, left out and without a future. You stick them in prison for 5 years + how do you think they are going to feel when they come out? Obviously in some cases they need to do some seriosu time but on the most part I think cextended community service would be much more effective and would save the tax payer money!

Doyou think this actor from 6 Harry Potter films felt isolated from society? Is that why he was rioting?

Why make excuses for people when they want to do damage to other people?
 
Doyou think this actor from 6 Harry Potter films felt isolated from society? Is that why he was rioting?

Why make excuses for people when they want to do damage to other people?


I said it was one of the key reasons not the reason, he was rioting becaus ehe got caught up in the madness and made some stupid desicions but does he deserve to go to jail for 5 years+ as some on here suggest...no
 
I said it was one of the key reasons not the reason, he was rioting becaus ehe got caught up in the madness and made some stupid desicions but does he deserve to go to jail for 5 years+ as some on here suggest...no

How do you know it was a stupid desicion, as you say, and he wasn't really trying to hurt somebody?

We don't know this kid or why he was there but he went to court and this was the finding so they must know something we don't.
 
How do you know it was a stupid desicion, as you say, and he wasn't really trying to hurt somebody?

We don't know this kid or why he was there but he went to court and this was the finding so they must know something we don't.

well yeh they gave him 2 years which I agreed with
 
Back
Top Bottom