Forum menu
If not, it really should be ...
[url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-14551582 ]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-14551582[/url]
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?
I don't think either they or others will be inciting any riots in the near future though.
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