[Closed] Is it a crime to be ugly?

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.

Your definition of ugly needs work.

4 years? Did the disorder actually take place? Whilst not condoning it, does it not seem a trifle excessive?

This is wrong.

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.

4 years? Did the disorder actually take place? Whilst not condoning it, does it not seem a trifle excessive?

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.

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.

[i]"Jordan Blackshaw, 20, set up an "event" called Smash Down in Northwich Town for the night of 8 August on the social networking site [b]but no one apart from the police, who were monitoring the page, turned up[/b] 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, [b]but no rioting broke out as a result[/b]."[/i]

It seems to me that immature idiots are getting harsh sentences for being simply stupid. And ugly.

ugliness is an aggravating factor in sentencing, I think you'll find.

Would that be why they were charged for inciting a riot and not actually rioting?

Four years? For being stupid on the Internet? I'm scared now and you should be too.

[i]ugliness is an aggravating factor in sentencing, I think you'll find.[/i]

as is poverty...

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 ?

If it is, then they're already enduring a life sentence.

<Groan>

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?

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 ?

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 ****er.

Four years? For being stupid on the Internet? I'm scared now and you should be too.

+1

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..

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.

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!

ernie_"D Cat"_Lynch 😉

we need [i]this[/i] guy in charge.. [i]he[/i] knows how to deal with people that don't toe the party line..

[img] [/img]

In the context of one of elfin's recent threads about brutalist architecture, it most certainly should be.

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 it

I struggle to give a crap for people like these two TBH

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.

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.

...I'd like to protest about this but if I suggested that here I could be locked up. Hurrah for [s]democracy[/s] [b]right wing nutjobs[/b].

FTFY

the robin hood airport bomber only got a fine. So hypothetically blowing up an airport is less serious than hypothetically rioting in northwich, hmmm.

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.

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.

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.

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 [i]we should all blow[/i] 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.

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.

The UK government will let you whinge and whine about it endlessly, even in large on-street demonstrations if you like, holding up everyone else and costing taxpayers policing fees. It'll even ensure there are investigations into how badly the police treated peope who were just protesting and get injured.

When people are setting out to cause criminal damage and mindless violence (even if it's under the veil of reason) they tend to be a bit more harsh, and rightly so. If you want to protest for the right for organised criminal activity then go for it, but that seems a tad moronic to me, but I wouldn't put it past a large percentage of he UK population to join you.

Gun metal skies, broken lives
Claustrophobic concrete, english high-rise
Exterminate the underclass, exterminate the telepaths

No civil disobedience, no civil disobedience

Incubating ultraviolence, psychic distortions
Slow death injectible, (my case is?) narcosis terminal
Damaged receptors, fractured speech

No civil disobedience, no civil disobedience

Control virus, hallucininatory programmes
Septicaemic interzone, psychic distortions
Satellite sickness, tv junk

No civil disobedience, no civil disobedience

What's up?

No civil disobedience, no civil disobedience
No civil disobedience

Insecticide shots for criminal cops
All jails are concentration camps, all judges are bought
Everyone's a prostitute, everyone's a prostitute

No civil disobedience, no civil disobedience

Lookout kid, they keep it all hid
You think you're free but you ain't free, just free to be hit
You're an unchannelled frequency
Nobody's listening
You're imbalanced permanent, nobody's listening

No civil disobedience, no civil disobedience

No civil disobedience, no civil disobedience
No civil disobedience

we can probably be pretty sure that they won't be net taxpayers by the time they come out, or afterwards.

*sniffle* they will probably be fired from their jobs at that charity, fall out of the 50% tax brand and it'll all be the fault of those that think trying to arrange violent disorder deserves a damn good bit of punishment.

In many ways these 2 poor wretches are the victims in this sorry affair.

In many ways these 2 poor wretches are the victims in this sorry affair.

Surely there's a Victims Support branch in Strangeways?

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..

But 8 years would also have had that effect - does that mean that 8 year sentences would also have been justified ?

What was the judge thinking, "I better not give them just a year each, otherwise they'll just do it again, or others will be tempted to do it" ?

Quite apart from anything else, it's my taxes which is paying for this stupid sentencing.

And yeah, this is more the sort of stuff you expect from a country like Iran, not the UK.

Incidentally, a couple of days ago someone in the UK was arrested for trying to organise a public water fight :

[url= http://www.2oceansvibe.com/2011/08/16/english-man-arrested-for-planning-water-fight-with-bbm/ ] English Man Arrested For Planning Water-Fight With BBM[/url]

And yet a couple of weeks ago the British press was having a song and dance about Iran doing exactly the same thing :

[url= http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/aug/04/water-fight-pistols-iran-arrests ]Iranian youths arrested for public water pistol fight in Tehran[/url]

I think the problem is few people consider the consequences of their online actions and fewer consider the consequences of their real life actions and how they affect others. It's about time people started to instead of hiding behind the "it's the internet, it's not real" ideal. In many ways these people need to grow up and take responsibility for their actions, making excuses for them is equally irresponsible.

What was the judge thinking, "I better not give them just a year each, otherwise they'll just do it again, or others will be tempted to do it" ?

Where's the line drawn? A week? A day? All will make them think twice, but they're stupid enough and presumably have so little to lose that only removal of liberty for a significant period will make them think twice?

a damn good bit of punishment.

have you ever met anyone who's been to prison..?

Where's the line drawn? A week? A day?

How about using "common-sense" and not stupid knee-jerk reactions when considering sentencing ?

Just a thought like 💡

How about using "common-sense" and not stupid knee-jerk reactions when considering sentencing ?

Just a thought like

Seriously, where [i]do[/i] you draw the line? What would you class as a sensible sentence that acts as a deterrent to others? The range of "common sense" sentencing is set out in the laws with which they were charged and as far as I am aware they are at the lower end of the sentencing for it? (max was 10 years wasn't it?).

have you ever met anyone who's been to prison..?

I once employed an armed robber, went in uneducated, came out with a degree
Nice bloke too

I once employed an armed robber, went in uneducated, came out with a degree

So you got away with the planning of the heist then?

Common sense says to me that you should wear a helmet when riding a bike, other have a differing opinion on what common sense is, don't they? A hard line stance now to send out a strong message to potential law breakers in the future seems a bit more sensible to me than nuturing an element of society that has no fear of or respect for authority and will cost us more in the future.
Just a thought like.

a damn good bit of punishment.

have you ever met anyone who's been to prison..?

I've met several over the years.

I'll agree with you that prison is not as effective as it should be, but 2 years in jail is a fairly severe punishment in my book.

A hard line stance now to send out a strong message to potential law breakers in the future seems a bit more sensible ........

So just one year for saying something silly whilst drunk on the internet, and which you regret the next morning, would be considered to be too soft ?

Don't bother answering that- I'm going on a bike ride.

To be frank, I really dont care. Given half a chance, they'd have been ruining some other poor sods life, and does anybody really believe they'd have thought about the consequences? Whether or not prison will make any positive difference, or the sentences were too harsh is another argument, but as I said, my initial reaction is 'so what?'.

Don't bother answering that- I'm going on a bike ride.

So just one year for saying something silly whilst drunk on the internet, and which you regret the next morning, would be considered to be too soft ?

Anyone can claim the "I was drunk" excuse, it's pathetic. Plenty of people blame their choice to drive on being drunk and not thinking straight, doesn't mean they should be allowed to get away with it unless they kill someone.

yunki -
we need this guy in charge.. he knows how to deal with people that don't toe the party line..

Shamone!! Get your looting ass out that trainer store mother f*****!! He Hee!!

*sniffle* they will probably be fired from their jobs at that charity...

The criminal justice system in this country needs a serious rethink.

With the exception of Russia, we have the highest prison population in Europe, yet we don't have a low crime rate compared to Europe generally. So its hard to claim that prison acts as a deterrent.

Trouble is, with all these stupidly reactionary sentences being handed out, which are totally disproportionate with the actual 'crimes', the courts will now also be full of appeals, at even more public expense. And I imagine loads of people will have their sentences commuted to something far more reasonable, which kind of makes a mockery of the original sentencing.

I'd like to see quite a few magistrates and judges 'retired' through all this. Some simply aren't fit to hold the office they should consider a great privilege and honour to be in.

People should be sentenced fairly and appropriately, not be used as political pawns.

I can't really see as how such tough sentencing will really prevent future trouble; people will have the attitude of 'may as well be hung for a sheep as a lamb', and be more prepared to avoid arrest. Or prefer targets which will be less likely to be considered by police, such as smaller shopping areas, less populated places etc.

This is all too 'shutting the stable door after..' kind of stuff. Just stupid.

I imaging the sentencing will put off quite a few.
It won't stop those with little to loose, but I reckon all the dimwits who went out for a bit of a loot for lolz will think twice.
You're right about the judges and magistrates though.

There is no justice in those sentences. Judge/magistrate/politicians need to be jailed for passing those sentences or allowing them to be passed.

I'd say fraud by an MP was far more serious than what those boys did.

i suspect sentencing will be greatly reduced on appeal
if not echr would hopefully get involved just to p!ss off the rightwingnutjobs (tm) even more

either way i think some lawyers stand to make a lot of money out of these riots

quite amusing to see brentford magistrates court all busy again as its about to be closed down

as i said before

1.2 million claimed by mps had to be paid back, but only 4 of them broke the law apparently

yet you can get 4 years for being a **** on the internet

un-freaking-believable

And I imagine loads of people will have their sentences commuted to something far more reasonable, which kind of makes a mockery of the original sentencing

i suspect sentencing will be greatly reduced on appeal

Quite possibly but the shock effect the 4 years has [presumably] had on them is worth it IMO
Let them sweat a bit more, thinking that they should be a bit better off after appeal but with a niggling doubt that maybe the sentence will stand - it's all good

Right who's up for some rioting and looting tonight? Meet up outside M&S at 7pm, maybe even do some pillaging as well for good measure.

Best hold back on the raping bit though eh? 😯

After all, we are more civilised these days.

Meet up outside M&S at 7pm

Which M&S?

Also, 7pm is the usual time that the Handwringers Society meet up and they often want some poor misunderstood [strike]villain [/strike] victim of society to tell their story
By the time the societies members have stopped tutting and weeping and with the usual break for coffee, it's often gone 9

Just a thought

coffeeking - Member

.....doesn't mean they should be allowed to get away with it

So where's the bit where I say [i]"they should be allowed to get away with it"[/i]? Go on, tell me - I'm serious. You can copy and paste it if you want.

Just because someone has a common-sense approach to sentencing, it doesn't automatically mean that they think the guilty should go unpunished. Although I can understand how simpletons who rely on knee-jerk reactions might think so.

4 years for what they did is stupid - end of, as far as I'm concerned. In the same way that 16 years for what they did would also be stupid. But pointing out that a sentence is clearly stupid doesn't mean you don't feel the law should be upheld.

I think you're all missing the most important factor in this story,

... which is that the guy on the right is actually snooker legend Steve Davis.

Jordan and Perry? Good job the judicial system has told me they're bad mans, coz I wouldn't have thunk it given their names...

So where's the bit where I say "they should be allowed to get away with it"? Go on, tell me - I'm serious. You can copy and paste it if you want.

Just because someone has a common-sense approach to sentencing, it doesn't automatically mean that they think the guilty should go unpunished. Although I can understand how simpletons who rely on knee-jerk reactions might think so.

4 years for what they did is stupid - end of, as far as I'm concerned. In the same way that 16 years for what they did would also be stupid. But pointing out that a sentence is clearly stupid doesn't mean you don't feel the law should be upheld

I would consider a lesser sentence to be "getting away with it lightly". Your opinion differs from mine, get over it.

Jordan and Perry? Good job the judicial system has told me they're bad mans, coz I wouldn't have thunk it given their names...

Slightly dangerous ground, the only "crim" I've known personally was called bob... 🙂

Thats completely ridiculous. These people are clearly just morons. All the riots were organise on a closed messaging system.

This just tells everyone one the justice system is now broken as far as the riots are concerned. Its turned into nothing other than a tool by which Cameron can stay in power by showing how hard he's being on people involved the riots, regardless of the crime.

Maybe if all the MP's had come back from their holidays before it was too late they could have prevented it in the first place?

coffeeking - Member

I would consider a lesser sentence to be "getting away with it lightly". Your opinion differs from mine, get over it.

Help me get over it by not talking complete bollox with regards to what I am saying.

Nowhere did I say that "they should be allowed to get away with it". And now having realised your own stupidity, but only because I pointed it out, you claim you said "getting away with it lightly", which is clearly false.

Why don't you stop and think about what people are saying, instead of just going into tabloid-fuelled knee-jerk mode ? 💡

As usual the right wing nutjobs are becoming unable to walk (or think) properly due to compulsive knee jerking..

[img] [/img]