If not, it really should be ...
Chat Forum
Is it a crime to be ugly?
-
Posted 9 months ago #
-
I think I might have seen uglier. Although to be honest I don't normally pay much attention to the handsomebility of people in news stories. As a consequence I rarely feel disappointed on that score.
Posted 9 months ago # -
Your definition of ugly needs work.
Posted 9 months ago # -
Posted 9 months ago #
-
4 years? Did the disorder actually take place? Whilst not condoning it, does it not seem a trifle excessive?
Posted 9 months ago # -
This is wrong.
Posted 9 months ago # -
The sections of the Serious Crime Act that these two were convicted under allow the judge to pass sentence as if they had actually committed the offences they were inciting/encouraging.
Clearly this was an exemmplary case to 'send out a message' as no actual disorder occurred.
Posted 9 months ago # -
4 years? Did the disorder actually take place? Whilst not condoning it, does it not seem a trifle excessive?
I don't think either they or others will be inciting any riots in the near future though.Posted 9 months ago # -
What a ludicrous, mental waste of money. The judge has sentenced these two 21/22 year olds (who, I'm sure, are complete morons) to four years imprisonment. Even assuming they only serve half, that's still going to cost taxpayers about 180 grand (45 grand per year x 2 - see http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2011/mar/02/offenders-serious-crimes-criminal-justice-revolution ) - leaving aside the fact that if they were outside and earning, they'd be paying tax, and that once they've been in prison for that long their chances of being gainfully employed in the future are much lower.
Christ, if it were that easy to get even 18 grand for a keep-the-youth-off-the-streets-and-stop-the-little-scrotes-making-trouble scheme there wouldn't have been any riots in the first place.
Posted 9 months ago # -
I don't think either they or others will be inciting any riots in the near future though.
Well since they failed to incite any riots this time round, I think that's probably a fair assumption.
"Jordan Blackshaw, 20, set up an "event" called Smash Down in Northwich Town for the night of 8 August on the social networking site but no one apart from the police, who were monitoring the page, turned up at the pre-arranged meeting point outside a McDonalds restaurant. Blackshaw was promptly arrested.
Perry Sutcliffe-Keenan, 22, of Latchford, Warrington, used his Facebook account in the early hours of 9 August to design a web page entitled The Warrington Riots. The court was told it caused a wave of panic in the town. When he woke up the following morning with a hangover, he removed the page and apologised, saying it had been a joke. His message was distributed to 400 Facebook contacts, but no rioting broke out as a result."
It seems to me that immature idiots are getting harsh sentences for being simply stupid. And ugly.
Posted 9 months ago # -
ugliness is an aggravating factor in sentencing, I think you'll find.
Posted 9 months ago # -
Would that be why they were charged for inciting a riot and not actually rioting?
Posted 9 months ago # -
Four years? For being stupid on the Internet? I'm scared now and you should be too.
Posted 9 months ago # -
ugliness is an aggravating factor in sentencing, I think you'll find.
as is poverty...
Posted 9 months ago # -
Would that be why they were charged for inciting a riot and not actually rioting?
Well no one paid a blind bit of notice to them, they failed to incite anyone to do anything imo.
It makes you wonder what the sentences might have been if they had been successful in their apparent aims. On par with murder perhaps ?
Posted 9 months ago # -
If it is, then they're already enduring a life sentence.
<Groan>
Posted 9 months ago # -
Is incompetence a mitigating factor then?
If you're charged with attempted murder because your incompetence meant you couldnt manage to get as far as murder, do you think you should be sentenced less than someone who was just unlucky they didnt manage to murder someone?
Posted 9 months ago # -
What a ludicrous, mental waste of money. The judge has sentenced these two 21/22 year olds (who, I'm sure, are complete morons) to four years imprisonment. Even assuming they only serve half, that's still going to cost taxpayers about 180 grand (45 grand per year x 2 - see http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2011/mar/02/offenders-serious-crimes-criminal-justice-revolution ) - leaving aside the fact that if they were outside and earning, they'd be paying tax, and that once they've been in prison for that long their chances of being gainfully employed in the future are much lower.
What would the cost be of allowing every nasty little scrote in the country to think they can call a riot whenever they want to ?
What makes you think that a) they have ever had gainful employment b) they are/have been net tax payers ?
Posted 9 months ago # -
Is incompetence a mitigating factor then?
I hope so. Despite my comments on various occasions on this forum, Tony Blair is still alive. I sincerely hope the judge will take my obvious incompetence into consideration.
EDIT : and the fact that I'm a handsome fecker.
Posted 9 months ago # -
Four years? For being stupid on the Internet? I'm scared now and you should be too.
+1
Posted 9 months ago # -
If the intention is to send a clear message and dissuade others from trying to incite riots on the web, then I think it has worked - so on that score I have no problem with the sentences..
Posted 9 months ago # -
Forget prison, costs "US" too much. It should only be used on a second offence and then it should be a truely miserable episode, forget human rights.
For the first offence I belive a good flogging on the local village green should do the trick. Not only will they been seen by all the locals so then shunned for ever but the locals may go and have a spot of lunch after the event and thus help the local economy a little.
Failing that hang them.
Posted 9 months ago # -
The modern judicial system is simply an archaic remnant from a by gone era of oppression.
It's a puppet show, designed to fool idiots into thinking that those who are in charge, know what they are doing.
They do not!
Posted 9 months ago # -
ernie_"D Cat"_Lynch
Posted 9 months ago # -
we need this guy in charge.. he knows how to deal with people that don't toe the party line..
Posted 9 months ago # -
In the context of one of elfin's recent threads about brutalist architecture, it most certainly should be.
Posted 9 months ago # -
Well since they failed to incite any riots this time round
They admitted the inciting public disorder charge
If they didn't incite anyone to do anything, they shouldn't have admitted itI struggle to give a crap for people like these two TBH
Posted 9 months ago # -
You have to wonder how the UK government can have the cheek to criticise Libya, China, Korea etc for imprisoning dissidents, censoring free speech and oppressing civil uprisings...
...I'd like to protest about this but if I suggested that here I could be locked up. Hurrah for democracy.
Posted 9 months ago # -
A lot of people on here strongly advocated beating, shooting, cracking heads and other extremes of violence, during the riots. Lets hope this sentencing is applied equally to them.
Posted 9 months ago # -
...I'd like to protest about this but if I suggested that here I could be locked up. Hurrah for
democracyright wing nutjobs.FTFY
Posted 9 months ago # -
the robin hood airport bomber only got a fine. So hypothetically blowing up an airport is less serious than hypothetically rioting in northwich, hmmm.
Posted 9 months ago # -
Northwich is a classic example of middle class middle England, about as far removed from inner city sink estates as its possible to get. A half decent brief would have just claimed it was an act of satire.
Posted 9 months ago # -
What would the cost be of allowing every nasty little scrote in the country to think they can call a riot whenever they want to ?
Why do you think it's such a binary situation where EITHER two morons on the internet get sentenced to four years' prison OR "every nasty little scrote in the country things they can call a riot whenever they want to"? Is there not, perhaps, some other option?
What makes you think that a) they have ever had gainful employment b) they are/have been net tax payers ?
I have no idea about them. But seeing as hundreds of thousands of pounds are about to be spent imprisoning them, we can probably be pretty sure that they won't be net taxpayers by the time they come out, or afterwards.
Posted 9 months ago # -
Donk - Paul Chambers (robin hood twitter twit) was found guilty under "Improper use of public electronic communications network - Section 127 Communications Act, 2003" which is "The offence is a summary offence, and part of the fixed penalty scheme."
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/communications_offences/
completely different to incitement to riot.
Posted 9 months ago # -
Stoner: these two juicebags could quite appropriately have been charged with that offence instead [assuming for a moment that they updated Facebook by mobile phone].
Tweaking the fact scenario slightly, if Twitter twit had posted "Robin Hood airport is closed. You've got a week and a bit to get your shit together, otherwise we should all blow the airport sky high!!", would the harm have been any different? Should he have been charged with a different crime and sentenced to four years' imprisonment?
There's no difference in the seriousness of the conduct.
Posted 9 months ago #
Reply »
You must log in to post.
