UK Men Get 4 Years For Trying to Incite Riots Via Facebook 400
An anonymous reader writes "In addition to the 12 arrests from last week, a judge has sentenced 20-year-old Jordan Blackshaw and 22-year-old Perry Sutcliffe-Keenan to four years in prison for their failed attempts to use Facebook to incite riots in the UK. The judge said he hoped the sentences would act as a deterrent. The two men were convicted for using Facebook to encourage violent disorder in their hometowns in northwest England."
It's a crime to attempt a crime, or incite others (Score:3, Informative)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inchoate_offense [wikipedia.org]
Off with their... (Score:2)
Still the best practical (albeit politically incorrect) response to hooligans.
Re:Off with their... (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
just planning a crime isn't a crime everywhere though.
but it's ridiculous if you can get away from manslaughter for less time.
Re: (Score:2)
Did you have a particular manslaughter case in mind? Typically manslaughter would not be less than 4 years. It might be on occasion, but it would no doubt be because of mitigating circumstances.
Re: (Score:2)
just planning a crime isn't a crime everywhere though.
And that's a good thing too. We don't really want to condemn murder mystery authors doing research for a book that they are writing.
Or fireman having an exercise of how to react to a bombing (Some amount of planning must have preceded the fake bombing to make it realistic enough for the exercise).
Re: (Score:2)
But the Facebook call to smash Norwich didn't result in violent acts. Norwich stayed calm. And so did Warrington.
The call could have been fit to incite violence, albeit it didn't.
Re: (Score:2)
Or as Vonnegut calls it: (Score:2)
Re:It's a crime to attempt a crime, or incite othe (Score:5, Insightful)
Where is the limit with political speech ? Is that forbidden to state the opinion that violent action is the only way to bring change in a corrupt system ? Not that I defend this opinion, but the fact that is is censored disturbs me deeply.
I'll use my right of free speech and call you a bloody idiot. This wasn't to "bring change in a corrupt system", this was about having a bit of fun destroying stuff, beating up people, and looting.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:It's a crime to attempt a crime, or incite othe (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh come on.
With a political message and marches in the streets, not blatant theft of consumer goods. To illustrate:
This is a political riot. [ibtimes.com]
This is people stealing things because they want to. [powwownow.co.uk]
The guys in this article started facebook pages called "Smash dwn in Northwich Town" (sic) and "The Warrington Riots". There is nothing political about what went on in the UK.
Welcome to British youth culture.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:It's a crime to attempt a crime, or incite othe (Score:4, Funny)
Re:It's a crime to attempt a crime, or incite othe (Score:5, Informative)
Nobody involved cared about that. Seriously - you had to be there, it really was people of various walks of life just grabbing everything out of shops then setting fire to them (then attacking firemen when they tried to rescue the families in the flats above), kicking people half to death, etc. - just going nutz to get stuff and get money and get away with settling scores against specific people or whatever community they disliked.
People being violently and/or sexually assaulted, robbed or even killed in the street. Not bankers, not politicians. Their own.
Not one bank or political institution was touched, only places with Cool Stuff in, and the cars/houses/persons of the working and/or poor people in their own communities.
"a chaotic mess of angry people lashing out"
A chaotic mess of rapturously smiling laughing people taking what they wanted and doing violence to people. Families having their homes torched and their lives endangered, swathes of jobs being ended by businesses being torched when nobody can afford insurance these days.
Killings of people who tried to help the victims, attacks against ambulances trying to treat the victims, attacks against firemen trying to put out fires.
Seriously, I don't know how to explain this convincingly enough without sounding emotive - this is in the place I've grown up in. Don't let people get away with saying it was a political demonstration - I mean you had to be there but seriously it REALLY. WASN'T., I would say what we all saw and endured had no protest component to it whatsoever past about 9pm on the first night - it was just open season for the cannibalistic predators of London to hurt/take from their own.
Re: (Score:2)
Then shooting policemen. And steeling their helmets. Then going to the toilet in the helmets. Then sending them to the policemen's grieving widows. Then steeling them again.
Re:It's a crime to attempt a crime, or incite othe (Score:4, Insightful)
There is a difference between demonstrating people who want political change in a non-democratic country, and people who go on a looting rampage in one of the richest democracies in the world.
I do not think that the rioters were trying to achieve change. I have yet to see anything other than people taking stuff and destroying things because they thought they could. Why it seemed like a good idea is something to look into.
It's not even a basic level of morality that's required, a political protest requires at the very least some sort of aim (other than acquisition), wouldn't you say?
Re: (Score:2)
You'd get a chaotic mess of angry people lashing out.
From what I saw of the UK riots it was bunch of spoilt brats cheerfully participating in vandalism, looting, mugging, and arson.
How exactly would civil unrest against a perceived corrupt political system manifest?
An angry political protest in the UK looks like the coal miners strike, the anti-war protests, (or for really angry, the IRA attacks), they have prominent leaders, a clear political message, and their parents do not hand them over to the police.
Re: (Score:2)
That's a lot of people just out to have fun
Actually, it's not. I have friends in some of the affected areas, and the majority of the population just stayed inside and locked their doors. If you read the news reports, you'll see that the mobs moved around very quickly, which made it hard for the police to do anything - by the time the police arrived at the scene, the rioting had moved somewhere else. So, when you see those photographs of big riots in lots of places, remember that a lot of them will be the same people rioting and looting in multipl
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
In this particular case, it wasn't a call to fix or change the system, but that doesn't negate the point: it's important to clarify what limits we are willing to place on free speech and to understand the consequences of those limits. I agree that this instance seems reasonable, but I think it's important to have guidelines so that we don't have to consider everything on a case by case basis. A call to riot for the sake of destruction is a crime. A call to protest is not. But what about a call for civil
Re: (Score:3)
In this case a blatant example of currency speak in a court of law, the difference between innocence and guilt being the size of the cheque book available to pay off lawyers, in this case zip, zero, nil.
First and foremost, no riot, no violence, not even a couple of drunks fighting. Second 750 million facebook users, bloody hell, one page amongst 750 million how many people were actually going to see it. Thirdly it is pull not push, people actually have to get it, it is not pushed out to them. Fourthly an
Re:It's a crime to attempt a crime, or incite othe (Score:5, Informative)
Monday week ago I was caught between the looters and teh police in Lewisham while returning a car. I had rocks and bricks sailing past my head. Then on Tuesday, one of our neighbours decided to make a stand and stop these little pricks from taking his wheelie bin to transport their ill gotten goods by asking them politely not to do it. Their response? They stabbed him. He's in intensive care and may not live.
Last night, we had 3 thugs breaking in to the place next door to us. We called the police and they responded very quickly and arrested the 3 of them. This is the same kind of "protestor" that everyone is talking about. So you know what? NO. These ARE NOT protestors, they're opportunists. The BBC has given them ample opportunity to present a case, and none have been able to do so. The internet is not rife with reason, but rather rampant stupidity on the topic.
This is not society's fault, nor the fault of the police, or the government, but the fault of a generation of bottom feeding scum sucking opportunists that need a harsh lesson in reality dealt to them.
Re: (Score:2)
They are cheap hooligan thugs who enjoy a bit of the old smashy smashy and in and out.
Heh, nice tie to A Clockwork Orange – and yes, this really is exactly what it was... No political point being made, just a bunch of twats found an excuse for thieving, violence and arson.
Re:It's a crime to attempt a crime, or incite othe (Score:4, Informative)
This has been widely misinterpreted in the UK that you can't do anything when someone breaks into your house and threatens your life. According to the westminster system, you have the right to use proportionate force against an intruder. Proportionate being the grey zone. Thankfully, a recent case where a family was help up by knifepoint cleared the waters somewhat, as when the father killed the guys with a knife, he eventually got off on self defence because he had an honest and reasonable fear for the safety of his family. David Cameron, our PM, intervened and said that an investigation of clear disproportionate force should be able to be used against an intruder to remove all doubt, although it has been argued that this would simply cause a spiral of violence. However, the judiciary and the legislate have made it quite clear. If your robber is running away, you can't do anything, but if he's entered your home and you have a genuine fear for your life, smash him in the face with a brick.
Re: (Score:2)
Go, examine the offenses and what happened. I promise you, it was not politicians or political institutions being protested against or smashed, it was not banks, it was not the government, hell it mostly wasn't even the police.
I can tell you how it was, I saw it. It was m
Re:It's a crime to attempt a crime, or incite othe (Score:4, Insightful)
Where is the limit with political speech ? Is that forbidden to state the opinion that violent action is the only way to bring change in a corrupt system ? Not that I defend this opinion, but the fact that is is censored disturbs me deeply.
The limit is in both impact and the success. There shouldn't be a limit on your speech as long as you are nonviolent and not forcing yourself upon others. If you are willing to become violent to make your point, you had better be ready to take it all the way *and win*. See American Revolution (violent, yet successful) vs. current situation in Syria (violent, yet getting mowed down in the streets).
As far as "this is censored" goes... I call bullshit. One of the few things that government is actually supposed to do is to protect its law-abiding citizens from real dangers - most tangibly represented as foreign armies and violent thugs. Physical security is among the most basic responsibilities of a government. The rioting kids are fortunate to be alive at the same time as the most convenient and far-reaching communications breakthroughs in human history. The government isn't telling them they can't have a voice, the government is telling them they can't smash up poor shopkeeps' storefronts to make their point.
Re:It's a crime to attempt a crime, or incite othe (Score:4, Informative)
I agree with you, except Syria hardly violent revolution, it was peaceful demonstrations with emotional crowds for sure, but Assad didn't wait for them to turn violent - he just crushed them to show that dissident won't be allowed at any measure. Fact that he tries to do some cynical PR in same time just speaks volumes what he exactly thinks about his nation.
Those people on the top in Syria aren't that afraid from revolution than the fact that they will have to answer about their crimes.
Re: (Score:2)
The info coming out of Syria from normal people isn't gelling with what is being reported in the international media - the Syrian 'protests' are well organised and armed, and most definitely not peaceful. But all you hear in the media is how the Syrian military is brutally putting these 'protests' down.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Where is the limit with political speech ? Is that forbidden to state the opinion that violent action is the only way to bring change in a corrupt system ? Not that I defend this opinion, but the fact that is is censored disturbs me deeply.
Airing that opinion in itself is not a crime (or censored). It becomes a crime when you actually encourage others to do it. If you suggest a particular object, place and/or time for example.
Re: (Score:2)
Where is the limit with political speech ? Is that forbidden to state the opinion that violent action is the only way to bring change in a corrupt system ? Not that I defend this opinion, but the fact that is is censored disturbs me deeply.
You really think these idiots were doing making a political statement or exercising free speech? They were both arranging riots and one even turned up for his riot.
As for the limits of free speech, the UK has plenty of it but it does not include inciting (encouraging) people to commit serious offences. Doing so will see you charged with a crime.
The US may have different boundaries and way of framing free speech. But free speech doesn't mean there are no limits. For example and just randomly, Connecticut
Re: (Score:2)
Almost. It is forbidden to state that violent action should be used to bring change with the expectation that that advice will be followed.
Re: (Score:2)
"Is that forbidden to state the opinion that violent action is the only way to bring change in a corrupt system ? Not that I defend this opinion, but the fact that is is censored disturbs me deeply."
That's not what happened though, is it?
They posted (in paraphrase) "Let's meet behind McDonalds at 2pm and go rioting", then they turned up behind McDonalds at 2pm.
This was not political speech, it was incitement and intent.
Re:It's a crime to attempt a crime, or incite othe (Score:4, Insightful)
As a British Subject, I'd love to see actual examples of an ASBO being issued for criticism of the government...
Because it's something I've never heard of.
Re:It's a crime to attempt a crime, or incite othe (Score:5, Informative)
I'm sorry to say that but for an outside European observer the UK is becoming more and more like a totalitarian country. There are cameras everywhere
Let me guess, an outside European perspective gained from reading The Daily Mail? The number of cameras in Britain is massively over exaggerated. The number that's usually thrown around was generated by taking a mile of one of the busiest streets in central London, counting the number of cameras (including speeding cameras and privately owned CCTV cameras inside shops on both sides) and then multiplying that number by the number of miles of roads in Britain.
The more realistic number includes motorway monitoring cameras, which are not recorded, have one person monitoring about 100 of them, and are used to notify radio stations and so on of large traffic jams and dispatch emergency services to accidents. The next highest number is automated speed / red light cameras. The government controlled ones in city centres are operated by the local councils and are mostly being shut down because they provide little benefit and the councils can't afford to operate them.
and face-recognition software is used to identify people on it
Not sure why this is a sign of totalitarianism. Is it less totalitarian if you have a human matching the faces to photographs? The face recognition that's been talked about in the media recently has been matching the faces of people from Facebook who said things like 'I got a new 42" TV in the riots!' to images from shops' CCTV. How evil...
internet and phone serveillance everywhere,
Unless you think The News of the World and Phorm are government agencies, I'm not sure where this comes from.
and all big parties are decidedly right-wing
Bullshit. One of the two parties in our coalition government is still slightly left of centre, and my MEP is from a decidedly left-wing party.
it is still legal in the UK to beat up your children
any UK news source, then you'd see examples of parents being imprisoned and having their children taken into care for this.
No sense at all (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Expect to see a web 2.0 "conspiracy to commit" legal roll out.
Re:No sense at all (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
The greatest threat facing Western civilization today is our own governments "protecting" us from perceived threats.
The greatest threat facing any child is the protection of its parents.
Life needs risk, challenge, consequences. 'Only danger can keep you safe from harm', so the poem goes.
Re: (Score:2)
There is a massive majority of people who are rightly keen to see justice done, but knee-jerk legislation and further ramping up of the surveillance state are what will probably huge dangers.
It's the same old process. Give a government a problem, and they will grant themselves some hei
Re:No sense at all (Score:5, Insightful)
The voters have been told in rolling news that they should be angry and focus on that..
How rude and insulting. The voters must be stupid, right?
No. The voters *experienced* the riots and are livid that members of their own communities would betray their own in such a nihilistic orgy of crime costing lives, injuries, homes, at least hundreds of jobs (of people/families in their own communities, not of the banks or politicians) and costing millions upon millions of pounds when the country is facing austerity measures, for entertainment and to put a flat screen tv and an xbox in their front room.
"Told they should be angry". Perhaps if you were injured, or your workplace* and/or home** was burned down, or your community had lots of people hurt, homeless and jobless and was looking down the barrel of rebuilding the town when it was facing cuts in every public service, you might think it warranted a serious deterrent for or at least removal of rioters, for however long is appropriate under the law.
Even if they aren't "mindless zombies controlled by the press".
Perhaps if it was YOU looking at your wrecked community or even life, you might think a little pause for thought was warranted before people labelled you malleable and stupid.
*Lots of places can't afford good insurance now btw
**Nobody can afford home insurance in the kind of deprived areas where homes were burnt down.
Re: (Score:2)
Nobody can afford home insurance in the kind of deprived areas where homes were burnt down.
Well, except the slumlords, who probably have complete rebuild insurance with a value much higher than the property, and can build a much nicer house and increase the rent a lot as a result...
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
The current ConDem government is making dramatic cuts in these deprived areas. In the areas around London where the riots occured, youth unemployment pushes 20-30%, practical illiteracy near 40%. The ComDem government has been introducing 'austerity' measures, removing grants to support schools making attending high school equivalent infeasible for many poorer, closing down the youth clubs, etc.
Local groups have been pointing out that the neighbourhoods have been near riot for months now.
On top of this, th
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Not one person has been reported in the media as having a political statement. I can point to at least one person with a political statement [youtube.com] though...
Re:No sense at all (Score:4, Insightful)
It is absolutely true to say that government cuts are affecting national and local funding for all citizens, and they are affecting deprived areas. However, these cuts have only come in to effect fully from April this year. The unemployment and illiteracy have been at those levels for a long time, including during the boom years of 1995-2005, and during the previous Labour administration. It is illogical to say that the currently limited impacts of the austerity measures are giving people cause to riot. If you look at the actual activity during the riots, it didn't include political protest, marches, speeches or any other normal signs of protest by ordinary people. It did include a relatively large number of groups causing criminal damage, violence and commiting flagrant acts of theft - typically of high value goods and big name brands. This was theft on a large scale, enabled by breakdown in normal social barriers.
The government is planning to reduce both front and back office police numbers, however these cuts have not taken place yet to any extent. Police numbers are at almost record levels. The police didn't retreat to protect stations, they deployed in the areas that they thought needed protection. However the mobile hoards, enabled by SMS and social networks, just moved to new sites, typically after a short skirmish. In short, asymmetric confrontation and overwhelming numbers. Once the scale of the problem was understood (a d a few politicians returned from holiday) they brought in an extra 16000 police for London alone - an increase of approximately 25% on the normal force. This managed to suppress most of the activity.
There are currently reportedly over 1000 people arrested, and the MPS have suggested that possibly another 2000 will be, once the CCTV and other evidence is analysed. This is hardly tiny by any one's measure.
As for brutal policing, the MPS have been negatively criticised for not being tough enough in the first few days, and they adjusted their tactics subsequently. They have not however used plastic bullets, water cannon, tear gas or any other large scale crowd suppression measures. This is not brutal. If you want to see 'firm' policing, ask the French.
As for fixing problems on the ground, the previous administration spent 10s of billions over more than a decade on enhanced social benefits and programmes for the disadvantaged. While it has doubtless helped many, it has also raised a generation that expects to live off the state, spurn education and employment, contribute nothing in return except vocal occasionally violent protest about how they are not provided enough.
drastic cuts? (Score:3)
To be clear, these "drastic cuts" in deprived areas are not optional.
No-one has any money, least of all the people in the area.
Spending money you don't have and will have to pay back has made the cuts more extreme than they might have needed to be.
Some of the poor are poor because they waste what they have - like a bunch of hooligans did this time. On the other side sometimes the rich aren't rich, they just borrow high.
Riots don't bring money out of no where to make someone with no money pay for what you ca
Re: (Score:2)
I think this is just a timing issue. Those who successfully incited riots will have longer charge sheets, including charges of actual disorder and criminal damage. Hence their cases will take longer to bring to trial than these relatively simple cases involving a single charge. They'll probably get even longer sentences when their cases do come up (probably in a couple of weeks).
And I don't particularly see why incompetence should be a defence in the face of the law.
Re:No sense at all (Score:4, Insightful)
Blackshaw created a Facebook event entitled 'Smash d[o]wn in Northwich Town' for August 8 but only the police showed up, and arrested him.
He deserved four years for his piss poor organisation.
On a serious note, I think that Blackshaw should perhaps have got two years max (he did create a page which tried to encourage rioting in his home town), but the other bloke perhaps six months for being a drunken dick(he took his page down as soon as he woke up sober.)
However as others have commented I'm sure the sentences will be reduced on appeal once the country has calmed down.
Overturned on appeal, most likely. (Score:3, Insightful)
I'll wager these guys won't do much in the way of hard time. They certainly shouldn't.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Half agree, half disagree.
Incitement, aiding and abetting, attempted etc. tend to incur the same standard as the crime itself. (Indeed in terms of such disorder it's often those quietly encouraging others who perpetuate the whole thing). So they should get similar sentences to those actively participating in the riots, if you increase those to 4 years, then these sentences are fine, if on the other hand they're all getting fines and suspended sentences then these are excessive.
Re:Overturned on appeal, most likely. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Just like if you were to hire a hitman, you don't actually fire a bullet, so the sentence should be different?
These guys were actively attempting to incite riots at a time when they were actively happening, attempting to fan the flames (as it were) and cause a spread of burning and looting.
Context is half of a story, and the context of this is clear. It's not intended as a joke, it's not satire. These guys were trying to incite the destruction of businesses and livelihoods, burning and looting. For no ot
Re: (Score:2)
Just like if you were to hire a hitman, you don't actually fire a bullet, so the sentence should be different?
I think so, yes.
Re: (Score:3)
It wasn't a judge that imposed this sentence, it was a magistrate. The justices' clerk advised them ignore normal sentencing guidelines, so that most likely the basis that their sentence will be reduced.
Re:Overturned on appeal, most likely. (Score:5, Informative)
No, it was a judge sitting in Chester crown court. Magistrates have a maximum sentencing power of 6 months. IANAL, just heard that expression repeated a lot recently; many looters who plead guilty are being remanded for sentencing at a later date.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually 4 years seems fine to me. After all their apparent intention was to assemble a mob and create havoc and cause damage. This could be regarded as a disorganized attempt at inciting revolution, something any society must deal with in a very severe manner with harsh penalties.
The guys on the street should get a lot more than 4 years, plus have to pay FULL restitution to those affected. Yes, I know the damages runs into the billions but the taxpayers or other insurance holders should not have to pay for
It will get reduced, however . . . (Score:2)
Re:It will get reduced, however . . . (Score:5, Insightful)
It just goes to show that even on the internet you can get in big trouble. A lot of people are learning that you can't get away with "everything" on the internet anymore. I'm surprised these people actually used their name. Haven't they heard of the people that have gotten fired for posting things about their job from there?
I'd suggest that these people (and most of the other people involved in the riots) aren't exactly the sharpest tools in the box...
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
... any more.
gotten
pp. of get, showing vestiges of the O.E. form of the verb.
Re: (Score:2)
Is this pretty much because.. (Score:2)
Re:Is this pretty much because.. (Score:5, Insightful)
No they probably won't catch most. There were an awful lot of rioters and looters. But they have arrested nearly 3000 people with 1300 having been in front of the courts so far. And they'll be continuing to track them down for weeks or months to come. So it's not that they don't have people who actually rioted/looted that they can make examples of.
The motivation is obvious. They don't want anyone else to incite a riot. Deterrence being one of the 3 justifications for punishment, and the most important one in this case.
Others crimes (Score:5, Insightful)
The judge said he hoped the sentences would act as a deterrent.
This could be a pretty big problem.
The Judge himself is pretty much saying here that he considers the punishment to be excessive compared to the crime but that Jordan Blackshaw and Perry Sutcliffe-Keenan should be punished more because the legal system doesn't want to bother with the rest of the criminals.
Well, it is not exactly his wording and it might not be that way in this particular case but I have seen that kind of reasoning in other cases and I seriously doubt that the two boys even would have been arrested if it weren't for a lot of other people running around causing trouble in the UK at the moment.
Compare to the average file sharing case where the plaintiff is punished because he could potentially have distributed a work to 10000 other people.
In those cases it is assumed that the plaintiff has distributed the work to 10 other people and that he should take the punishement for the crimes that those other 10 people did. (Not that it clears them from any legal action in the future.)
Re: (Score:3)
The Judge himself is pretty much saying here ... that Jordan Blackshaw and Perry Sutcliffe-Keenan should be punished more because the legal system doesn't want to bother with the rest of the criminals.
Not so. The punishment of criminals has always had the important function of deterring other (potential) criminals. That's why justice being seen to be done is just as important as it being done. In that way they are certainly being made an example of, like all convicted criminals. The message is here is if you pull stupid crap like this there are uncomfortable consequences to be faced.
It may be an excessive sentence, and they probably will win an appeal, but I'm fine with that if it gives them a scar
This past riot right? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Countries like the UK, Canada and Japan use group sentencing if all of the same people are caught doing the same thing(i.e. riotous actions, drug smuggling, theft, etc). It saves on time, and court space instead of having 250 or 800 trials. They simply bring them to court, have their lawyer represent them, use a jail feed, or sworn in by affidavit(as required/need), that they're pleading *x* to whatever crime.
If someone want to dispute it, they can. Then they get shoved off into another court at a later
Re: (Score:2)
It's a bluff for rioters. (Score:2)
This will get appealed and tossed out, but in the mean time, it might just be handy to keep people guessing before they go rioting.
"hey, let's have a riot!"
"no, we will get a billion years in prison just facebooking about it."
"ok lets go find some birds to shag"
Something to keep the tossers off balance.
Bully for Cameron! (Score:5, Informative)
Prime Minister David Cameron said [telegraph.co.uk]:
Mr Cameron is no stranger to appalling behaviour, being a former member of the Bullingdon Club [wikipedia.org], "notorious for its members' wealth and destructive binges". The club song apparently goes: "Buller, Buller, Buller! Buller, Buller, Buller! We are the famous Bullingdon Club, and we don't give a fuck!"
Cameron's 'Buller' escapades include running from the police through the streets of Oxford after a heavy flowerpot was thrown through a restaurant window [ft.com].
And that is the problem in England (Score:3, Insightful)
The country is morally corrupt. When lords are send to jail by the bus load but still only a fraction of the ones who made a complete mess of things can you expect the people on the bottom not to feel they can do some leeching of society as well?
Human society doesn't work because we are social or because we are good but because more or less the majority doesn't want to much fuzz so they get along. Just see how on footpads people tend to go left-right despite their not being any law for it. Because going aga
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I think you're making some serious exaggerations there, there were a handful of Lords sent to jail over the expenses fiddling (Lord Taylor and Lord Hanningfield are the two that spring to mind), not bus loads.
In terms of sleaze you're about 14 years out-of-date for that. The last election where sleaze was ever a big issue was 1997 when Tony Blair came to power, and the reason that that was a big issue was because it was an easy target for Labour, and an easy one to sell to the tabloids. The last election
This is NOT about freedom of speech (Score:3)
THIS is about consequences. No one can shut you when you have to say something - but expect some punishment if something you want to say includes breaking the law in senseless way like looting and destroying others property without sensible cause. And yes, even you see your aim just, law just doesn't care. Judge might, but still you will receive penalty for initiating uncontrolled mobs and riots. If you want start a revolution, sorry kid, with all good intends it takes much more organizing than that. Otherwise mob is just a mob and in it responsibility and morality of individual goes down the drain.
4 years sounds harsh, but I don't know lot of details. I would go for 2 years, which are enough for thinking this trough.
Not consequences (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Sure, it's about consequences when a bunch of kids smash up some store fronts. But when men in suits crash the entire world economy, where are the consequences? Do you really think this is justice?
Re: (Score:3)
Facebook? (Score:3, Funny)
4 years in primary school would have been more appropriate.
The judge is an idiot (Score:5, Insightful)
First of all, research has shown again and again that harsh penalties simply do not work as a deterrent to other offenders.
Secondly, does the judge expect that another riot is around the corner? Who is he trying to deter?
I expect the sentence to be reduced on appeal.
Re: (Score:2)
First of all, research has shown again and again that harsh penalties simply do not work as a deterrent to other offenders.
But speedy arrest and conviction does deter. It's a primate thing: do something socially bad, bad things happen back to you, learn not to do it.
Who is [the judge] trying to deter?
Anyone and everyone stupid enough to ever think that they can get away with this sort of thing without consequences, and he's trying to do it over as many years for the future as possible.
I expect the sentence to be reduced on appeal.
OTOH, incitement to riot is a serious offense particularly when widely disseminated. (That it happened online isn't really germane to this case; doing it by giving speeches to a c
Re: (Score:3)
But speedy arrest and conviction does deter. It's a primate thing: do something socially bad, bad things happen back to you, learn not to do it.
...and handing down over-the-top sentences in this case has ensured that there will be an appeal, which will effectively prolong that process and give the perps a sense of vindication.
Its pretty clear that these people were not the sinister criminal masterminds behind the riots - they're just a couple of irresponsible tw@ts who needed to spend their weekends sorting garbage for the next six months. Now, when the inevitable appeal has reduced their sentence, they'll be folk heroes to their fellow tw@ts and
What if they were caught looting? (Score:2)
Would four years be unreasonable if they were caught breaking into and looting a store? I believe that someone who instigates an illegal action should be punished as if they committed that action themselves.
so if someone said we should invade iraq, (Score:3)
and it turns out that this invasion was illegal under international law, should they be prosecuted as war criminals?
how about if someone says we should torture POWs? and we do torture POWs? are those people guilty now of war crimes?
how about if someone says we should kill all the lawyers? if some lawyer gets shot, should that person go to prison?
how about if some website is full of comments about how downloading movies and music in violation of copyright law is legitimate because the companies are evil? sho
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Wow? (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Wow, so the trial took at least an entire day?
Well they plead guilty so what else is there to do?
Re: (Score:3)
Aside from the fact that they pled guilty, what else do you expect? This is an open and shut case – they can trivially be tied to their Facebook accounts, the contents of the Facebook account can be established, and it can easily be established that 1) Facebook asks you not to give your login details to other people 2) that the post came from somewhere they commonly post from.
Why would they spend more than an hour or two on it, even if they didn't plead guilty?
Re: (Score:2)
pled guilty
You are the third person to say that, but the first to spell it correctly. Congratulations!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You've been successfully trolled.
Re: (Score:3)
I would post "man, someone's really begging to get his site DDoSed", but I guess I would face 4 years of jail time if I did.
Re: (Score:3)
Anyone else want to do the same?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, continually through the Labour government, where they had databases and registers to track almost everything you wanted to do. And if it wasn't criminal, then you'd better believe they had a plan to make it illegal if they thought they could.