Bad actors stoking hate again (Southport Stabbings)

I expect that not everyone who attended the counter protests went with good intentions.

I expect that not everyone who goes to football matches, the O2, and the Albert Hall, have good intentions, hence the no bottle top rule. How is that relevant to what is being discussed?

Going to an EDL protest with the intention of rioting is not the same as going to an anti- fascist demonstration with the intention of showing opposition to racism.

To repeat, it was the anti-fascist counter-demonstrators who put an end to the far-right riots

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

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

But I didn’t say that premeditated was necessary did I? I clearly know better what I said than you do!

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

I thought the judge’s decision not to allow the protestors that defence was harsh. He defended it by saying that the prosecution was happy to concede that climate change was real, that the court accepted all the scientific evidence for it, and that they should avoid the expense and time from expert witnesses for no real purpose. That by recognising that Hallam and (I think) some of the others were defending themselves, that he’d allow some leniency. That they decided to make that a public protest probably reinforced the judge’s decision rather than making him think again.

EDIT at the time of this trial, Hallam was on bail from Isleworth court because of a plan he cooked up to fly drones into Heathrow. At what point does ‘peaceful’ protest become so dangerous to the rest of us that its got to stop?

But I didn’t say that premeditated was necessary did I? I clearly know better what I said than you do!

Don’t ever defend yourself in Court :)

Don’t ever defend yourself in Court :)

Well I wouldn’t ask you to do it for sure :)

I would be saying things that I had never actually said!

…hear a defence argument based on conscience and freedom of expression

There wasn’t a defence argument. They were giving mitigation, which isn’t the same thing

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.

The Attorney General (Victoria Prentiss at the time) raised an appeal on an earlier court case through the court of appeals, which changed the ability for defendants to use beliefs as a reason for property damage and so on. That occurred between the Colston 4 and the JSO trials.

More whataboutery from Ernie when the facts don’t match his narrative.

However,

it was the anti-fascist counter-demonstrators who put an end to the far-right riots

What relevance is that to the discussion about an individual’s sentence?

No one has made any attempt at a response to my question on the previous page either.

Gravy wrestling…

That’s not a thing.

It’s got to be better than sieving gravy.

Imagine how much gravy you’d have to make…

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

The police were in the middle so no obvious self defence need on his part vs just moving out of range.

Plus throwing stuff back is unlikely to tick the “protect yourself” box. Unless you really like cricket bowling/baseball it will just give tit for tat.

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.

In all fairness, if a bunch of thugs appear outside my house demanding I be deported or lynched whilst shouting abuse at me, I’m not going to take much notice of a German academic report.

Imagine how much gravy you’d have to make…

Considerably less than Fartage and Yaksmilk-Lesbian have made out of the whole ‘bit of a mess’ they stirred up.

What relevance is that to the discussion about an individual’s sentence?

The relevance was a discussion I was having with Nick who seemed to think that the individual should have stayed at home.

No one has made any attempt at a response to my question on the previous page either.

Perhaps everyone is stumped.

What was it again?

It looks like the more serious charges are due to start arriving in court today, so its going to be interesting to see the sentences handed out.

Its been violent disorder so far and jail periods have been pretty serious, but today… Andrew McIntyre will be at Liverpool Crown Court today, charged with encouraging murder, violent disorder and possession of a bladed article.

Encouraging murder sounds pretty bloody serious. I suspect he won’t be seeing the light of day for a while. Apparently people already charged with violent disorder are being warned that their cases are being looked at again and the charges against them could be upped to rioting which carries double the potential jail time

Merely pointing that out at the JSO trial got an old woman arrested.

At the JSO trial 11 people got nicked for doing so.

That is despite the high court having already said “nope. read that plaque in the old bailey” in Trudi Warner case which was at a Insulate Britain hearing last year.

Incidentally the government finally abandoned its appeal in her case yesterday.

Encouraging murder sounds pretty bloody serious.

And illegal may I add.

For Ernie;

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?

He’s already been sentenced and got less time for the most recent offence than the can thrower, which seems unfair.

In all fairness, if a bunch of thugs appear outside my house…

Yep, I agree, but that’s not what happened to Amer was it? I thought he’d gone to mosque, found the riot, got shouted at, threw same cans. Got arrested.

If he’d stayed at home, he wouldn’t be looking at 20 months. Although I’d be astonished if he couldn’t appeal it.

I thought he’d gone to mosque,

Well if that is the case why are you suggesting that he should have stayed at home?

Whether he went to the mosque to pray or to defend it seems perfectly reasonable to me, he obviously didn’t go there to cause criminal damage.

It is a fact that would-be far-right rioters were thwarted by overwhelming numbers of counter-demonstrators. As I said previously on this thread the EDL would apparently typically send a scout to film the size of a counter-demonstration before returning to a pub where the decision would be made whether to have a go. No way would the far-right stage a “protest” if they were met by overwhelming numbers.

Edit: The judge in this case accepted that the individual concerned had not gone there looking for trouble

Sentencing Walid, Judge Robert Linford said he accepted he had not been “looking for trouble”

Well if that is the case why are you suggesting that he should have stayed at home?

I’m saying if he’d stayed at home, he’d not be looking at 20 months. He didn’t need to go to mosque to pray, he could’ve done it at home, and even if he went, he didn’t need to start throwing stuff about that got him arrested. FAFO.

He didn’t need to go to mosque to pray, he could’ve done it at home

So you believe that he should have yielded to the far-right and have allowed himself to be intimidated. That is not how you defeat fascism.

He absolutely did the right thing and did not stay at home. Although he should not have thrown back the 4 beer cans, that’s illegal, I am reliably informed ;-)

Edit: The judge did not criticise or punish the guy for being there, he accepted that he wasn’t looking for trouble, so I am not sure why you keep suggesting that he should have stayed at home.

It reminds me of the Jean Charles de Menzies case when some people tried to argue that had he gone back to Brazil when his visa had run out he wouldn’t have been shot dead by the police. It’s not really much of an argument even if it is true.

So you believe that he should have yielded to the far-right and have allowed himself to be intimidated. That is not how you defeat fascism.

Now you’re just putting words into my mouth. Stop.

That is not how you defeat fascism.

Throwing beer cans at dimwits who can’t articulate why they’re on the streets having a barney with the cops isn’t defeating fascism either. These aren’t fascists, theses are morons. They couldn’t spell fascist let alone describe it’s philosophy.  Tommy Ten Names is a fascist; he’s fine and on his holidays, he’s not been defeated, and he couldn’t give two shits about the idiots he’s thrown under the bus either.

Amer’s in prison for making a stupid decision, like I said I feel sorry for the fella, but throwing beers cans about while there’s a riot on is only ever going to end one way.

Words into your mouth? get a grip. Suggesting that he should have prayed at home instead of going to the mosque is clearly suggesting that he should have modified his behaviour to suit the far-right wish to attack the mosque.

How else would you describe it?

Throwing beer cans at dimwits who can’t articulate why they’re on the streets having a barney with the cops isn’t defeating fascism either.

It is pretty pointless just repeating the same thing over and over again. No one has said that throwing cans of beer back was the right thing to do. You of course know that.

You were suggesting that he shouldn’t have been there in the first place. Not even the judge has suggested that.

@timba, four cans is exactly what the Novara report says. And I would say that going to a scene of widespread violence isn’t the correct framing, it’s that he went to a scene of widespread racist violence directed at people like him, with the intention of standing peacefully against it, and that matters.

Edit: jesus I was behind in this conversation. It seems this detail doesn’t matter to a lot of people and four cans was enough to justify the sentence. I’m as bafelled about this point of view as ernielynch is — clearly he lost his temper and f**ked up, but given the context, I’m astounded at the harshness of the sentence.

Its easy to be a fan of judges handing out massive sentences until they hand out a massive sentence to someone you like

… and what sort of person are you @tenburner?

If you could describe yourself in 10 words what would you say? What is your spirit animal? Do you believe in ghosts, pixies, trolls?

I wondered what had happened to tenburner.

How many posts before you’re caught in a direct lie again? Or are you just going to snipe with a sentence at a time?

He didn’t need to go to mosque to pray, he could’ve done it at home

He could. And then they win.  That’s exactly what they want, people of colour to be scared to leave their houses.

Now you’re just putting words into my mouth. Stop.

Nah, I’m with Ernie on this one. (I know, I was shocked too.) That’s exactly what you said, that it’s his own fault for having the audacity to be outdoors.  If that’s not what you meant then you articulated it poorly.

These aren’t fascists, theses are morons.

I highly doubt that the Venn diagram here would be two discrete circles.

How about not derailing the thread onto personal attacks against an individual?

Personally I thought tenburner’s comment was quite sage.

How about not derailing the thread onto personal attacks against an individual?

My 3rd sentence wasn’t my best.

But it’s not a personal attack to point out that someone stated two contradictory things about where they live in relation to the topic of immigration and/or crime.

Its easy to be a fan of judges handing out massive sentences until they hand out a massive sentence to someone you like

People who commit violent disorder or riot? No tears spilled over their sentences here.

The Attorney General (Victoria Prentiss at the time) raised an appeal on an earlier court case through the court of appeals, which changed the ability for defendants to use beliefs as a reason for property damage and so on. That occurred between the Colston 4 and the JSO trials.

Indeed. It’s an excellent example of how the government can influence the judiciary to get the result it wants, and refutes Binners’ touchingly naive viewpoint.

which changed the ability for defendants to use beliefs as a reason for property damage

Makes sense to me. Just imagine if every rioter decided to use the defence of their ‘beliefs’ to justify torching a library? We all obviously think that their Tommy Robinson style ‘beliefs’ are nuts, but that doesn’t mean that they hold them in any less importance than Tarquin and Miranda hole their own ‘beliefs’ about climate change, does it?

The judiciary has to be impartial and treat all as equals, so if Mr White-yet-with-dreadlocks is allowed to spend his time in court using climate change as a justification for whatever bell-endery he’s been charged with this week – painting a race horse orange or whatever –  then the judge must then also sit and listen to why Tommo thinks that people coming here on small boats are causing the destruction of western civilisation which is why he torched a Vauxhall Corsa

So I’m sorry but ‘I don’t like the outcome’ doesn’t indicate a conspiracy.

I have to say I’m delighted with the sentencing for both the rioting nutters and the jso nutters. Peas of a pod just with different beliefs

4 years 8 months for that idiot in Hull!

The one on the right.

David Wilkinson, 48

Forty Eight… :/

https://i.postimg.cc/HnqHnnTD/4ce2406b-260f-40cf-8489-a2f2e0a4bace-jpg.webp

Can’t find any way to display a pic at the moment. :(

Blimey! He must have had a tough paper round!