Work or Home?

"Breaking into business premises tends to lead to shorter sentences than homes"- BBC News

Photo from: talktalk.co.uk 

It has recently come to light that the sentences for looters involved in the London riots have been based on the idea that "Breaking into business premises...lead to shorter sentences than homes". However, this does raise the question: what do you value most?

During the riots, the BBC interviewed many shopkeepers who had been effected by the wide-spread looting. Many of these reports were heart wrenching when you realised that the people being interviewed had lost everything. All the hard work and money that had gone into building up their businesses had been lost in an instant. So, it does seem a little unfair that the sentences for looters will be weaker than those who burgle homes.

However, I can't help thinking this is a sneaky way of stopping overcrowding in prisons. But, I do feel that breaking into someone's home is of course worthy of a hefty punishment.

So, in this case I am undecided. Should sentences for buglers of homes be greater than the looters in the London riots? Or should the sentences be equal? Write your views below...

'Real Housewives of Beverly Hills' Husband Commits Suicide

Russell Armstrong found dead in his apartment

Photo from: okmagazine.com 

If you have never watched 'Real Housewives of Beverly Hills", do not fear! This post is not going to be focused on the programme itself but, more on the significance of this tragic story.

Russell Armstrong, the estranged husband of Taylor Armstrong was found dead in his apartment on Monday. He had hanged himself. There were no traces of alcohol or drugs in his body which shows that he was not under any influence when taking his own life. Friends informed the police that he had got into serious dept recently, and his wife filling for divorce last month had caused him to become seriously depressed. This was not helped by Taylor Armstrong's accusations of physical abuse (we have no idea if they were valid or not). 

I feel the moral of this story, is that people should not take part in reality TV shows if they are not in a sound state of mind or are having problems with their personal lives. I am in no way claiming that reality TV causes people to commit suicide but, what I am saying is that, TV networks have a tendency to choose people who are not mentally sound or in a good place to take part in their shows (because it creates more drama), which can contribute to breakdowns (either someone's own breakdown or their family's). A prime example of this can be seen on the MTV 'Teen Mom'. 

What people usually do not realise when they apply to be on a reality TV show, is that the instant fame they might gain could have lots of negative repercussions... 

Like anybody in the limelight, reality TV stars can often find it difficult to handle their fame and sometimes simply cannot cope with the sudden strain it puts on them and their personal life. 

If well established stars such as Britney Spears and Lindsay Lohan have had trouble handling fame and everything that comes with it, then how does anyone expect an overnight reality TV star to cope? 

That is why I feel the death of Russell Armstrong is a lesson for our times and a very tragic tale.    

The London Riots

“Let’s make sure if people riot and break the law they get thrown out of their council house"

Photo from: telegraph.co.uk

In a recent speech on UK TV, David Cameron claimed that “For too long we’ve taken a too-soft attitude towards people that loot and pillage their own community" and, as a result of this, the government are stating that people who are convicted of crimes relating to the London Riots could risk losing their state funded housing. 

However, there is one problem with this strong statement: there are many people with criminal records who live in council houses already. This raises the question: why won't they be evicted too? The fact that only crimes relating to the riots will result in eviction does seem to send out the message that a first time offender who stole some trainers from JD sports deserves a greater punishment than a repeat offender who has been charged for countless offences.

Overall, I feel that the government desperately wants to be seen by the public as taking control of the situation to calm people's nerves and restore a sense of normality. However, in doing so, they seem to be ignoring the bigger picture of why a child would be involved in the riots and also implying that not all crimes deserve equal punishment. But, such drastic measures may be necessary in reducing the levels of petty crimes such as vandalism in poor areas and by evicting families, such measures could help to break up gang networks in communities.

What do you think about the government's take on punishing the looters of the London Riots? Is it all a publicity stunt or do you think the government will follow through with their promises and make a difference?