Bad actors stoking hate again (Southport Stabbings)

and you think those are the wrong way around.

Well I do, for one. I believe that unprovoked violent assault is a more serious crime than disruptive peaceful protest.

It’s interesting that there hasn’t been discussion about the trial of the Colston four here, the people who tossed the statue of a slave trader and philanthropist into Bristol harbour. In that case the defendants were permitted to run a wide ranging and unorthodox defence, and the jury acquitted them as they were entitled to do. Merely pointing that out at the JSO trial got an old woman arrested.

The right to peaceful protest is legitimate.

Annoying a judge

Your argument seems to be that if you annoy the people in charge, you get what you deserve.

It costs a fortune to reopen a motorway, both in Police/Highways Agency costs, but also to the overall economy. It’s in the region of £2m for a few hours of closure for the direct overheads; if it’s a premeditated closure then the financial impact will (presumably) have a result at sentencing. Rioters tend to be planning ahead a little less, I’d imagine.

It’s the same at football grounds in this country, when you get a wobbly plastic bottle…

Always have a spare screw top in your pocket for that reason. Saves a fortune in not being kicked over when things get exciting, but then again maybe not at OT.

The right to peaceful protest is legitimate.

Sure, but your beliefs don’t extend to the right to behave in any way you personally think is OK, peaceful protest doesn’t give you right to decide that everyone else has to suffer so that you can have your say. Peaceful protest doesn’t give you the right to decide that it’s OK to ignore everyone else’s safety and break the law in any way you think is justified.

It’s in the region of £2m for a few hours of closure for the direct overheads; if it’s a premeditated closure then the financial impact will (presumably) have a result at sentencing. Rioters tend to be planning ahead a little less, I’d imagine.

So just in order to be clear that we got the sentencing right – how many hours of motorway closure are equivalent to burning a refuge full of asylum seekers?

Your argument seems to be that if you annoy the people in charge, you get what you deserve.

That isn’t my argument at all. My argument is that the law is applied by the independent judiciary without political interference and ‘fear or favour’, which has been done, whether you or I agree with the outcome or not.

We all know the rules and laws and why we have all to abide by them if we want to maitain a civilised society. So in contravening those rules and laws having been repeatedly warned not to, we leave ourselves open to the penalties for that.

It really is pretty simple. I’ve never been in the dock in a court (having never thrown a brick at a copper or glued myself to a bridge o the M25), but if I ever did I think my default would be to borrow an ill-fitting suit and look humble while nodding in all the right places and have a legally qualified professional make my “I’m really really sorry” defence for me. What I definitely wouldnt do is opt to defend myself and use that as an opportunity for a bit of political grandstanding to my mates in the gallery. This is on account of not being an idiot and perferring to spend the following weekend watching the footy on telly or popping out on my bike, rather than fending off the unwanted attentions of Crusher McMunter on D Wing

Christ, this again, Hallam didn’t ‘annoy’ the judge, he had lengthy previous convictions, contempt for court, he was also warned about swaying the jury and ignored this as well, as for the peaceful protest stuff, i think over the last year we’ve seen JSO starting to cause violence through antagonising the public, endangering life by climbing gantries and so on, trespass, damaging property, etc, etc, etc, but yeah, it’s peaceful protest so let them off with a warning.

The legislation invoked is also a choice – see the current decision to charge people with “riot”, so it’s not an impartial process.

The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) has said that it’ll review cases and put any forward to Stephen Parkinson, the Director of Public Prosecutions, who is the only person in the CPS that can consent to prosecutions for riot/incitement to riot.

Dated yesterday (15th) “Following a review of further evidence, the Crown Prosecution Service has today laid a charge of riot in relation to a 15-year-old boy, following disorder that took place in Sunderland on August 2.

This is the first such charge to be authorised by the Crown Prosecution Service in the wake of recent unrest.

However, as that evidence picture continues to build, if it becomes apparent that an individual may have been involved in further criminality, they will be brought before the courts again and charged with the most serious offence possible.

https://www.cps.gov.uk/north-east/news/first-riot-charge-authorised-following-widespread-disorder (my bold)

That isn’t my argumant at all. My argument is that the law is applied by the independent judiciary without political interference and ‘fear or favour’

“The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal their bread.”

That isn’t my argumant at all. My argument is that the law is applied by the independent judiciary without political interference and ‘fear or favour’

Too funny. You really believe that? Bless.

What I definitely wouldnt do is opt to defend myself and use that as an opportunity for a bit of political grandstanding.

You think climate change is “political”? But yeah – best to avoid those pesky “principles”.

In that case the defendants were permitted to run a wide ranging and unorthodox defence

Sort of…They were accused of criminal damage, and pointed out that they hadn’t actually damaged the statue. And that it had in fact been made more valuable because of what subsequently happened to it. Which isn’t so wildly unorthodox as to be unprecedented.

he was also warned about swaying the jury and ignored this as well, as for the peaceful protest stuff

He was specifically prohibited from making a defence argument that many would say is directly relevant to the reason for the protest. A similar defence was permitted  and used in the Colston Four trial, yet Binners tells us that we’re all equal under the law.

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….

That’s probably an example of made up facts. Where is the evidence that “he joined in a riot”? If Croydon had been targeted by the far-right I would certainly have gone on a counter demonstration, if the EDL supporters had rioted it would not have meant that I had joined in a riot.

I knew that it would happen but already people have forgotten what put an end to the racist far-right riots which plagued our cities every day for 10 days.

It WASN’T the police, there simply wasn’t sufficient numbers of them, it was the huge numbers of counter-demonstrators. Staying at home was not an option for anyone committed to driving racists off our streets.

It’s the same at football grounds in this country,

And the Albert Hall, as I discovered when I went to the Proms on Monday. But being the rebel that I am I ignored the ‘no bottle tops’ rule and managed to smuggle a un-decapitated bottle of water in. I am not sure no bottle top would have made a huge difference if I had decided to sling the bottle at the punters in the posh seats though.

Sort of…They were accused of criminal damage, and pointed out that they hadn’t actually damaged the statue. And that it had in fact been made more valuable because of what subsequently happened to it. Which isn’t so wildly unorthodox as to be unprecedented.

That was only one of the arguments used, and we don’t actually know which of those arguments persuaded the jury.

There’s a big difference between politely and articulately defending and explaining your actions and grandstanding, the JSO lot did the latter, despite lots of warnings.

The importance of the cause doesn’t justify the actions taken either. A silly but relevant example.

You hit someone with a brick to stop them attacking a child, serious action but justified by the seriousness of the incident and the likelihood of your action stopping the perpetrator. This would probably be accepted as a reasonable defence.

Hitting an oil executive with a brick, climate change is undeniably extremely serious, hitting the oil executive is not going to make one jot of difference to climate change though so the same action in response to an equally important issue would be viewed very differently.

Of course you can argue the blocking of the M25 did have some impact, unfortunately is was to generally make people less sympathetic to climate change issues. Maybe they should have been detained for setting the cause back, unfortunately that’s not a criminal offence.

So just in order to be clear that we got the sentencing right – how many hours of motorway closure are equivalent to burning a refuge full of asylum seekers?

None. Not all things are equal, or binary.

yet Binners tells us that we’re all equal under the law.

I understand that this doesn’t fit with the tinfoil-helmeted worldview of those of a left-leaning disposition when seeing conspiricies by ‘the state’ at every turn, but we have an independent judiciary, free from political interference.

The JSO lot got 5 year sentences for the reasons listed by many people here, not for their political opinions. Its hardly like they were sent to the gulag to make big rocks into little rocks, is it?

Where is the evidence that “he joined in a riot”?

I thought he pleaded guilty to throwing “missiles at the opposing crowd” How is that not being in a riot?  Or are you saying becasue he was opposing it, he wasn’t involved?

Sure, but your beliefs don’t extend to the right to behave in any way you personally think is OK, peaceful protest doesn’t give you right to decide that everyone else has to suffer so that you can have your say. Peaceful protest doesn’t give you the right to decide that it’s OK to ignore everyone else’s safety and break the law in any way you think is justified.

“No, not THAT kind of peaceful protest”.

That was only one of the arguments used, and we don’t actually know which of those arguments persuaded the jury

Sure, but, y’know, in order to prove criminal damage, there has to actually be some damage.

Nice to see this thread as turned into another tit for tat spat based on egos and point scoring.

Perhaps you could sort it all out face to face, bare chested, on Dartmoor?

Perhaps you could sort it all out face to face, bare chested, on Dartmoor?

We could’ve, but we’re not free to roam on Dartmoor any more :-)

Or are you saying becasue he was opposing it, he wasn’t involved?

I am saying exactly that. If the EDL had come to Croydon they would more than likely have rioted, and there would have more than likely have been counter-demonstrators, including me. Does that mean that I would also have been rioting because I hadn’t stayed at home?

The police have accepted that the far-right riots ended partly because the community pulled together, as they called it, maybe you could accept that too rather than accuse counter-demonstrators of being at a riot.

Throwing cans of alcohol back at the EDL supporters (it is the far-right that turn up at “protests” with cans of lager, not anti-fascists) was clearly unlawful, but it doesn’t mean that the offender was guilty simply because he chose not to stay at home when a riot occurred, as you suggest.

As I understand it the severity of an offence is very much dependent on how premeditated it was. Throwing something back that has been thrown at you by a racist chanting mob doesn’t sound very premeditated to me. In contrast those attending far-right “protests” knew exactly what they were going to do. To make no distinction between the two is bizarre.

Perhaps you could sort it all out face to face, bare chested, on Dartmoor?

Theres only one way to settle this. Gravy wrestling…

To make no distinction between the two is bizarre.

He has options. He can decide to join in throwing shit around, or he can walk past and not get involved. One of those decisions places him in danger of getting arrested, the other, at worst makes him late for his tea as he might have to walk a longer way home.

The cops said the community coming together peacefully showing solidarity and preventing the nut-jobs from having their idiotic ‘protests’ on the street, was in part why they fizzled out, they didn’t say “Oh yeah, these other idiots throwing shit back at those other idiots was what stopped it all”

Gravy wrestling…

That’s not a thing.

How does this leaflet from the last riots square with the man who threw the beer back?

As I understand it the severity of an offence is very much dependent on how premeditated it was. Throwing something back that has been thrown at you by a racist chanting mob doesn’t sound very premeditated to me.

Pre-meditation isn’t necessary, the mental element for violent disorder includes “is aware that his conduct may be violent or threaten violence.” (Public Order Act 1986 s6(2))

If you go to a scene of public disorder peacefully, e.g. to report for the media, police it, render first aid, etc, that’s one thing. Step over into unlawful violence, however…

At least half of this disagreement is based on misunderstanding the concept “not comparable”.

It can mean that the two things cannot be compared at all, they are apples and hatstands, no relationship between them.

It can also mean that the two things are not of similar magnitude, and it’s clear that one is more serious than the other.

Kicking someone to death is not comparable to slapping them on the wrist. Well actually they *can* be compared, and one is a much more serious assault than the other.

vs

Eating an apple is not comparable to taking a dog for a walk. Aleast, it’s not obvious what the point, or the basis of any such comparison might be.

I believe all convictions from these events will be reviewed at the highest level, as well as appeals, so we’ll see if any extenuating circumstances may be brought in to reduce this sentence.

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

Why does football attract such dickheads in the first place?, why not ban all attendance?.

(I’m not a football person, not watched a game)

That’s not a thing.

You’ve not been to Stacksteads then?

Its later this monnth. Get it in your diary

Why does football attract such dickheads in the first place?, why not ban all attendance?.

(I’m not a football person, not watched a game)

It attracts huge audiences, so amongst that multitude there will be a percentage of dickheads. Thats life. My objection isn’t neccessarily the dickheads, who are a tiny minority, but being monsterously overcharged for a lukewarm plastic bottle of cooking lager. If you wanted to start a riot over something then warm Budweiser is as good a reason as any

“is aware that his conduct may be violent or threaten violence.” (Public Order Act 1986 s6(2))

I am not sure how many times this needs to be said……no one is actually arguing that throwing back cans of beer was lawful. So there really isn’t any need to keep pointing out that it isn’t lawful.

Nick was suggesting that he should have stayed at home and not gone to the scene of a riot. I am suggesting that going to show his opposition to far-right racists was the right thing to do but that throwing back cans of beer was not. HTH

Sure, but, y’know, in order to prove criminal damage, there has to actually be some damage.

The prosecution said there was damage. It’s possible the jury believed that to be true, and acquitted the defendants for the other arguments made. Juries have the absolute right to acquit regardless of the evidence they have heard. I would argue that the jury in the JSO case should’ve been allowed to hear a defence argument based on conscience and freedom of expression, as they were in the Colston case.

Wrong thread

I expect that not everyone who attended the counter protests went with good intentions. The youths in balaclavas is a good example of that.

I am not sure how many times this needs to be said……no one is actually arguing that throwing back cans of beer was lawful. So there really isn’t any need to keep pointing out that it isn’t lawful.

Ernie, you were the one talking about pre-meditation.

Pre-meditation isn’t necessary, which is what I was pointing out…

I’m attempting to help your understanding of the legal situation, but you clearly know better

I am suggesting that going to show his opposition to far-right racists was the right thing to do

a  German study a while back about Pediga protests, found that Counter-mobilization
does not prevent Pediga taking to the streets, and large counter-demonstrations are associated with larger subsequent Pediga protests, and violence against the either groups of protestors reduces the likelihood that they will stop protesting.