Rioting spreading through London & to other English cities.

This is the bit I wrote after the quotation:

The parents have felt disempowered by the very social planning intended to help their children.

Whether recent immigrants or members of British families stretching back across the centuries there are no inherent flaws in UK parents. Social programs designed to make their lives somehow better have stripped many of them of any real sense of personal responsibilty and without that, how can they convey the same virtue to their children?

I feel like Blackadder talking to Baldrick.

Riot sentence rift opens between Liberal Democrats and Conservatives
guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 17 August 2011 21.00 BST


Lib Dem peers warn of 'loss of proportion' and Simon Hughes calls for 'relative leniency on first-time offenders'


Rioters convicted of first-time offences deserve leniency, says Simon Hughes, deputy leader of the Lib Dems. Photograph: Sarah Lee

Two of the most significant figures in the British legal establishment have made urgent warnings about tough sentencing for riot-related offences as the split in the coalition over the response to last week's violence dramatically widened.

Lord Macdonald, who led the prosecution service in England and Wales for five years, warned that the courts risked being swept up in a "collective loss of proportion", passing jail terms that lack "humanity or justice".

Meanwhile his fellow Liberal Democrat peer Lord Carlile, the barrister who was until this year the government's independent adviser on terrorism strategy, warned against ministerial interference in the judicial process, arguing that "just filling up prisons" would not prevent future problems.

David Cameron, who last week promised severe punishments for rioters, saying he hoped courts would use "exemplary" sentences to deter future riots, praised the sentencing decisions, which have included two jailed for four years each for inciting riots on Facebook – riots that never took place – and one person sent to prison for six months for stealing £3.50 worth of water.

Asked about the Facebook case, the prime minister said: "They decided in that court to send a tough message and I think it's very good that courts are able to do that."

But Carlile suggested the sacrosanct separation of powers between the government and the judiciary was being put at risk by comments from some ministers. He told the Guardian: "I don't think it's helpful for ministers to appear to be giving a steer to judges. The judges in criminal courts are mostly extremely experienced and well capable of making the decisions themselves. Ministers should focus on securing the safety of the public."

Asked if ministers had overstepped the mark, he said: "Some judges may feel that and some ministers may feel that they have had a responsibility to use the language of sentences rather than policy."

Macdonald told the Guardian: "Some of the offences that have been committed are exceptionally serious and they require grave punishment, and the sentencing guidelines cater for this. But we are also seeing exceptional punishment for opportunistic offences that appear, on the face of it, to be less serious. Coupled with the threat to remove benefits and to evict the families of rioters from their homes, we are seeing a response that risks becoming excessive and contrary to the norms of justice.

"I think it's essential that the courts don't become swept up in a collective loss of proportion. There is a difference between a sentence that deters and a sentence that lacks humanity or justice. Nothing could be more destructive to social harmony than criminal sentencing which is ill-judged and unfair."...<cont>

What chance has he got of understanding that?

It seems as you have the same greed that runs your country as we do

I don't have answers. But I question this whole disparity of sentencing with the government is doing what the people wish "fighting back" as in a knee-jerk reaction - and the RESOURCES to deal with this, bringing it into our schools, parenting orders,- it's just platitudes that are gonna cause a whole world of other hurt

Why do I keep having to explain things to you? Even David has said he understands my posts.
It is not the quotation I have an issue with, but your interpretation. That's the bit you wrote after the quotation.

Because you so often don't make any sense.

This is the bit I wrote after the quotation:

Quote:

The parents have felt disempowered by the very social planning intended to help their children.

You see that as a distortion of what the man said?

Maybe David understand how that is the case, but not me.

Devonshire!

We locals just call it DEVON!

Thank u!
Do u live there??

I do indeed!

I'm off to bed now so I'll be brief. Whatever the rift is, it's not big enough to destroy the coalition. Neither of the Condems will do well if an election were held now. It's just the Liberals trying to give themselves something a bit distinctive, that's all.

Carlile suggested the sacrosanct separation of powers between the government and the judiciary was being put at risk by comments from some ministers. He told the Guardian: "I don't think it's helpful for ministers to appear to be giving a steer to judges. The judges in criminal courts are mostly extremely experienced and well capable of making the decisions themselves. Ministers should focus on securing the safety of the public."