Bad actors stoking hate again (Southport Stabbings)

Who throws away perfectly good beer ?

Someone who doesn’t drink alcohol?

Walid, who has no previous convictions, said he became angry after a bottle or can of alcohol was thrown at him, as he doesn’t drink.

Muslim Convicted in Rioting Should Have ‘Risen Above’ Far-Right Racism, Says Judge

He had no previous convictions and the judge accepted he had not been “looking for trouble” and that far-right rioters had been throwing missiles and making “deeply offensive racist chants”.

So it would appear that he basically threw back stuff that had been thrown at him, by a racist chanting mob.

I am sure that he could have been given a lighter sentence which would have been within the sentencing guidelines, rather than a similar sentence to a racist looking for trouble and with a string of previous convictions.

20 months for what he did in the face of extreme provocation doesn’t sound like justice to me. Unless there are facts that have been omitted?.

Maybe the judge was a recovering alcoholic?

The first person has now been charged with rioting as opposed to violent dissorder. Looks like they’re upping the ante and going for longer sentences.

Who throws away perfectly good beer ? Maybe he’s the one needing psychiatric care

Or…a Muslim…

Anyhow, 90% sure it would have been Stella, so twice the justification for chucking it.

I’m not saying what he did was right or lawful. I actually don’t really have a clue what the law says tbh.

What I do know is that throwing four cans is pretty average behaviour for your friday night drinkers in Leeds, and I doubt many of them are being sentenced to over a year and half jail time for that.

As for treating people equally, I think someone that attends a racist riot and throws four cans at a muslim because they want them in the country should get sentenced far, far more serverly than someone that is racially abused at an anti-racism protest, has four cans thrown at them, so looses his temper and throws them back.

Both should have ‘risen above’ their behaviour — but the former had so, so much further to rise.

We’ll see how their sentences compare to the JSO ones

Different legislation, different sentencing guidelines

And? Does that make it fair? Shouldn’t the sentence in some way reflect the severity of the crime?

How about someone currently on a two-year suspended sentence after being caught with a Lucozade bottle filled with ammonia, along with being in possession of cocaine and heroin who attends a demonstration wearing a balaclava, punches someone in the face repeatedly and attempts to kick someone who was already on the ground? What should they get?

And? Does that make it fair? Shouldn’t the sentence in some way reflect the severity of the crime?

The people who have been sentenced so far have pleaded guilty and taken their punishment. The JSO lot pleaded not guilty, opted to defend themselves, then spent their time in court behaving like a bunch of arses, despite being repeatedly warned by the judge to pack it in as they were in contempt of court.

Their sentences reflected that

If any of the present lot decide to do the same as the JSO mob did, then their sentences will also reflect that

Thats the way the legal system works if you decide to discard the ‘**** about and find out’ rule.

It didn’t go too well when the pair with 199 previous convictions tried to justify their actions.

Also – I imagine the average JSO defendant has a higher IQ than the average rioter from the last few weeks. Whether cocky self assuredness or blatant prejudiced stupidity winds a judge/jury up more is probably best assessed on a case by case basis, though.

Some of the JSO guys were probably of a mindset of trying to make a cause célèbre out of themselves as well – most judges aren’t that keen on having their courts become a pulpit.

Thats the way the legal system works if you decide to discard the ‘**** about and find out’ rule.

And the striking miners at Orgreave could’ve kept out of trouble by staying at home.

then spent their time in court behaving like a bunch of arses, despite being repeatedly warned by the judge to pack it in as they were in contempt of court.

What you describe as “behaving like a bunch of arses” was explaining to the court the motive for their actions and the stakes involved. Not really the same as throwing bricks at the police, but maybe you’d have been happier if they’d drawn a hilarious meme.

Whether cocky self assuredness or blatant prejudiced stupidity winds a judge/jury up more is probably best assessed on a case by case basis, though.

If you’re the sort of person who gets easily wound up by human behaviour it’s probably better that you don’t become a judge and leave the job to people able to make an objective evaluation of what they see before them.

What you describe as “behaving like a bunch of arses” was explaining to the court the motive for their actions and the stakes involved

Righto… so if a Tommy Robinson acolyte decides to plead not guilty, defend himself and then spends his time in court grandstanding and lecturing everyone on what he regards as the damage being done to society by immigration, you’ll be equally as outraged when he gets five years then? I’m sure you definitely wouldn’t regard that as behaving like an arse, with us all being equal under the law and all that?

I’m sure you definitely wouldn’t regard that as behaving like an arse, with us all being equal under the law and all that?

I might consider them an arse but being sane I would find it problematic that they get punished by a judge for daring to argue their case simply because the judge decided against them making a defence. I mean even a sixth former could spot the potential issues here.

The judge certainly has some interesting views on contempt of court eg his demand some people be arrested for bearing signs “Juries deserve to hear the whole truth” and “Juries have the absolute right to acquit a defendant according to their conscience.”

Is that reasonable as well in your eyes?

Is that reasonable as well in your eyes?

We’re not supposed to challenge authority or the small c conservatives get upset.

The judge certainly has some interesting views on contempt of court eg his demand some people be arrested for bearing signs “Juries deserve to hear the whole truth” and “Juries have the absolute right to acquit a defendant according to their conscience.”

Is that reasonable as well in your eyes?

I’d like to think that I had enough between my ears to realise that in a chronically overstretched judicial system and being on trial for bringing the M25 to a standstill/lobbing a brick at a copper*, that the judge would take a pretty dim view of me ignoring the actual trial process and banging on about oil/immigrants* instead

* delete as applicable

Nice to see the usual suspects back together again to totally derail another thread though.

This one is meant to be about the riots, not some gang of trustafarian dickheads. Isn’t there another thread about the JSO lot, which everyone else avoids because, well…

Do you lot have a form of batphone where you summon each other with a projected symbol in the sky…?

20 months for what he did in the face of extreme provocation doesn’t sound like justice to me. Unless there are facts that have been omitted?

I agree.  From the minimal facts as presented, the sentencing seems wildly excessive.

That said, “I was deeply offended as a Muslim that someone threw a beer can at me, so I picked it up and…” doesn’t strike me at the most robust of defences.

Nice to see the usual suspects back together again to totally derail another thread though.

Ah, not going your way again – quickly reach for another hilarious image, that should do it.

An full can could be viewed as an offensive weapon. A guy on my uni course unfortunately met a bunch of casuals on the cowgate and the first he knew he was in trouble was an unopened can of coke to the face. Broken jaw, deep lacerations, and 8 teeth out.

Then he got a shoeing.

I agree.  From the minimal facts as presented, the sentencing seems wildly excessive.

That said, “I was deeply offended as a Muslim that someone threw a beer can at me, so I picked it up and…” doesn’t strike me at the most robust of defences.

IMHO I think it’s an issue of counter protesting protestors vs other protesters vs police it all ends up getting mashed up as civil disorder.

There’s no foul cancellation in this game.

An full can could be viewed as an offensive weapon.

all the concerts I’ve been to in Spain always take the top off water bottles because of this.

Nice to see the usual suspects back together again to totally derail another thread though.

You could try dealing with the substance of the debate rather than reaching for a hilarious picture.

If you’re the sort of person who gets easily wound up by human behaviour it’s probably better that you don’t become a judge and leave the job to people able to make an objective evaluation of what they see before them.

It’s a good job I’m not a judge then, isn’t it…

If you think that judges aren’t human and aren’t influenced in their sentencing by the conduct of defendants in court, though, then it’s probably better that you don’t ever try to defend yourself in court – should you ever happen to be there.

See what I did there?

all the concerts I’ve been to in Spain always take the top off water bottles because of this

It’s the same at football grounds in this country, when you get a wobbly plastic bottle of Carlsberg for a tenner at half time. You wouldn’t want to be hit in the head by a full one.

Anyway… back on topic, if you’re one of the people who’ve been remanded in custody, you’re going to be a tad worried now actual riot charges are being issued, meaning potential ten year sentences.

I presume that will have most definitely put a stop to any more potential trouble. It’s been awfully quiet from Little Tommy Ten Names and the rest of the rabble rousers. I presume he’s still ‘on holiday’ Given the charges he’s already facing, he must be seriously worried about what’ll happen if he sets foot on UK soil again. It’s almost like he’s a refugee. How ironic.

I agree. From the minimal facts as presented, the sentencing seems wildly excessive

Nail on head. People have been looking at minimal facts, inventing a few to minimise those facts and then leaping to major conclusions about sentencing. It isn’t about “throwing 4 cans at the rioters” (made-up “fact” and isn’t what the BBC report^^ or any other report says).

In Amer Walid’s case, it’s about Violent Disorder*, it’s about going to the scene of widespread violence deliberately, chanting and gesturing towards police and throwing (at least) “four missiles in the direction of the opposing crowd”

Sentencing, Judge Linford said that events on the evening “caused serious fear in the community”, as well as “enormous disruption”.

He said: “On the evening of 5 August there was widespread public disorder in this city. The police attended in force and acted with extraordinary and commendable restraint.

“People ran amok throwing stones, fireworks and other missiles intent upon damaging property and harming others.

“Word must go out that people who behave in this way will go to prison and will be going to prison for a considerable period of time.” https://www.radioexe.co.uk/news-and-features/local-news/more-jailed-for-plymouth-riots/

If you read other reports you’ll find a bit more information, e.g. Amer Walid lied to police about only throwing one missile, until shown video.

Gary Harkness, who has mental health issues, wasn’t violent and didn’t throw missiles but encouraged others in this public disorder and was sentenced to 12 months. I haven’t seen anyone complain that that’s excessive on this thread

Judge Linford said Harkness, who served in the Army and suffered from PTSD, had “encouraged others” but had not hit, thrown or spat at anyone. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c2dg32jxzx5o

*Violent disorder is defined as, “three or more persons present together used or threatened unlawful violence so that the conduct of them (taken together) would cause a person of reasonable firmness (had such a person been present at the scene) to fear for their own personal safety.”

Planning may be an important ingredient in a case of violent disorder but regard should be had for the potential of minor incidents to flare up into serious disorder sufficient to meet the requirements of this section. https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/public-order-offences-incorporating-charging-standard

What you describe as “behaving like a bunch of arses” was explaining to the court the motive for their actions and the stakes involved.

At the beginning of his trail Hallam said to the judge that finally realised that his public protesting days were over, and then during the same trial, staged a public protest. Hallam got 5 years, because He was on bail at the time for doing the same type of protesting. He had a history of convictions going back to the 80’s, and as the judge said, referring to another case, “The more disproportionate or extreme actions taken by the protester, the less obvious is the justification for reduced culpability and more lenient sentencing”

Not really the same as throwing bricks at the police

Couldn’t have said it better myself, it’s just whataboutry, but you keep bringing it up like it matters somehow.

20 months for what he did in the face of extreme provocation doesn’t sound like justice to me

The fella has my sympathies, but he joined in a riot, was did he expect was going to happen? I could understand a more lenient if he was at his home, or something like that, but he literally just joined in. As the judge said, he could’ve walked away, he didn’t need to stand there and give as good as he got. I guess he **** about and found out.

Couldn’t have said it better myself, it’s just whataboutry, but you keep bringing it up like it matters somehow.

So consistency in sentencing is “whataboutery” ?

So consistency in sentencing is “whataboutery” ?

and

Not really the same as throwing bricks at the police

Make your mind up.

Make your mind up.

You seem to be a bit confused. Making an argument about climate change (even by blocking a road) is not by any stretch as serious a crime as physical assault, yet it gets a harsher sentence. That is not consistent sentencing.

Happy to clear that up for you.

So consistency in sentencing is “whataboutery” ?

Consistency in sentencing is provided by the sentencing guidelines.

Different legislation, different guidelines.

The state (your MP) will be happy to discuss your concerns because they also vote on the legislation

Making an argument about climate change

Hallam wasn’t sentenced for his beliefs. He was sentenced becasue what he intended to do could have been very dangerous for himself and the people he was encouraging to take part and all the folks it potentially could’ve effected, the last part of which was his actual intent.

But they’re completely different things, as you’ve said so yourself, its like complaining that someone who robs a bank gets a difference sentence from someone who speeds on the motorway.

Consistency in sentencing is provided by the sentencing guidelines.

Different legislation, different guidelines.

The state (your MP) will be happy to discuss your concerns because they also vote on the legislation

The legislation invoked is also a choice – see the current decision to charge people with “riot”, so it’s not an impartial process. Person A lobs a brick and gets 2 years for violent disorder, person B lobs a brick and gets 10 years for riot. Not consistent.

Making an argument about climate change (even by blocking a road) is not by any stretch as serious a crime as physical assault, yet it gets a harsher sentence.

In your opinion. Other points of view are available.

Not everyone who’s been charged or sentanced, or is waiting to be charged or sentenced was directly involved in the actual physical act of hurling bricks at coppers. People have been jailed for incitement for making social media posts, so how does that fit in with your own personal system of ranking of offences?

What you seem to be calling for is a two tier justice system, where Baz from Huyton gets a harsh sentence because he’s a horrid right wing thug, but Sebastion and Angelica from Surrey get a completely different sentence, because their cause is deemed (by you) as a nice, worthy, middle class, Guardian-friendly one that you happen to agree with.

Its the job of the judiciary to sentence all without fear or favour, which they have done in all these cases, taking into consideration a number of factors including the defendents plea and their subsequent behavior in court.

But they’re completely different things, as you’ve said so yourself, its like complaining that someone who robs a bank gets a difference sentence from someone who speeds on the motorway.

Yes, it’s like complaining that someone who robs a bank and shoots a bank clerk gets a lighter sentence than someone who speeds on a motorway. You’re making progress (but do bring your arguments up again next time someone who kills a cyclist by dangerous driving walks away with a slap on the wrist).

What you seem to be calling for is a two tier justice system, where Baz from Huyton gets a harsh sentence because he’s a horrid right wing thug, but Sebastion and Angelicafrom Surrey get a completely different sentence, because their cause is deemed (by you) as a nice, worthy, middle class one that you happen to agree with.

On the contrary, I’m calling for a one-tier system where people are sentenced according to the actual gravity of their crimes. You’re right – I’m putting violence against the person as higher on the list than annoying a judge.

Person A lobs a brick and gets 2 years for violent disorder, person B lobs a brick and gets 10 years for riot. Not consistent.

That hasn’t actually happened as yet so it’s just kinda made up shizzle. The sentencing guidelines for riot indicate that you’d have to do much, much more than lob a brick to get ten years. Sentencing seems to start at three years, possibly four if  you lob your brick at the police, which with a reduction for a guilty plea would seem to keep one firmly in the sentencing that’s already been weighed out.

I’m calling for a one-tier system where people are sentenced according to the actual gravity of their crimes

Gravity and mitigation is all listed in the Sentencing guidelines for each offence and they are pretty clear – deviate and it can be appealed.

Looking at the public order act it looks like they could’ve been charging with that all along but obviously being by trial only it would not have had the effect of the quick arrest and jail process that’s been ongoing.

Yes, it’s like complaining that someone who robs a bank and shoots a bank clerk gets a lighter sentence than someone who speeds on a motorway

But in the cases you’re complaining about one bloke gets 3 years for throwing a brick at a cop, and another get 5 years for planning to bring the entire M-way around London and all the motorways around it to a standstill, and you think those are the wrong way around.

You’re right – I’m putting violence against the person as higher on the list than annoying a judge.

Annoying a judge, having bought a substantial chunk of the transport network of the south east to a halt, amongst other things. The being an annoying tool in court business was simply the icing on the cake and was extremenly unlikely to elicit much leniency in sentencing.

Anyone with anything between their ears would know this so would only have ‘annoyed a judge’ (and continued to do it despite repeated warnings) if they were deliberately trying to make themselves a martyr. By the various posters on this thread, something they seem to have managed quite effectively.

With the rioting, some people have received harsh sentences for making social media posts from the comfort of their own sofa. Where do their sentences rank on your personal legal league table?