Don’t know if this lot is correct, but if it is it seems fair:
You only have to take a look at the sentencing history for “Violent Disorder”, coupled with Mr Gilmour’s nature in court (allegedly giggling at scenes of his actions), tempered by the fact he pleaded guilty and apologised for certain (but not all) actions.
Attacking a police officer by throwing bottles – 10 months
Encouraging others to KILL police officers – 12 months
Revenge attack on property, with “attack” of person, person of good character – 18 months
Taking part in a riot, repetitive attacks on riot police with state of mind to “re-arm” with projectiles, second offence – 3 years
16 months, given that Charlie doesn’t exactly seem remorseful of the main elements of the charge (which is the threat, as little as it was in reality, he put members of family of the head of state under, and the encouragement for others to break the law), seems pretty much bang on all things considered, doesn’t it?
Now, perhaps the sentencing range (maximum 5 years) for this offence is too harsh, that’d be a fair stance to take.
But to call this sentencing “political” or “outrageous” is to just not have bothered to check what is normal in sentencing this kind of offence, as it stands in law.
Can’t say I’m that bothered either way really.
