ForumGarden

Two British gang members who set up Facebook pages urging locals to riot were given four years jail yesterday. Predictably the Left in the guise of Human Rights Groups have howled out in protest against the sentences.

What always amazes me is where these Groups are when the rights of law abiding citizens are threatened or in many cases taken away completely. The people killed by rioters had their lives taken from them ... what could be a worse abuse of rights than that?

I've no doubt that these Groups have enough clout to force the Court to change the sentences to community service or some other wimp-like cop out ... mores the pity.

jones jones;1365752 wrote: Two British gang members who set up Facebook pages urging locals to riot were given four years jail yesterday. Predictably the Left in the guise of Human Rights Groups have howled out in protest against the sentences.

What always amazes me is where these Groups are when the rights of law abiding citizens are threatened or in many cases taken away completely. The people killed by rioters had their lives taken from them ... what could be a worse abuse of rights than that?

I've no doubt that these Groups have enough clout to force the Court to change the sentences to community service or some other wimp-like cop out ... mores the pity.


Proportional punishment, that's the key. If you give a punishment for one crime the the punisment for a more serious crime should be heavier and for a less serious crime should be lighter.

The question then becomes, "did the words written cause, or were they intended to cause, the death of any member(s) of the public".

That question specifically because there are many cases in the UK where a person has directly caused another person's death and received a lighter sentence than that.

In my mind, damage to property is always a lesser crime than damage to people. Property can be replaced, restitution made but the dead cannot be brought back to life and there is no restitution to the family of the dead.

What makes anyone think they're gang members?

I haven't the slightest problem with the pair being sentenced to four years apiece. I agree no riot eventuated from their daft web pages and nobody was hurt. They're still reasonable sentences, given the events of the week. Am I no longer of the left?

No riot ensued but that's not the Issue.

I know of a local man, kicked his lady friend to death in a drunken brawl, got seven years, makes you wonder don't it ?

Bruv;1365833 wrote: I know of a local man, kicked his lady friend to death in a drunken brawl, got seven years, makes you wonder don't it ?
Certainly.

I know someone who helped kicked some-one to death nearly two years ago and will be out In September.

oscar;1365822 wrote: No riot ensued but that's not the Issue.


oscar;1365835 wrote: Certainly.

I know someone who helped kicked some-one to death nearly two years ago and will be out In September.


So what is the issue?

Two years for murder, four years for posting ineffectual messages on Facebook - I'd still say the issue is proportional punishment.

The four will be two with parole, you know that. Just as oscar's two years served was from a longer sentence.

I've seen it said of this issue that if the security service frustrates a planned bombing before the planner recruits a suicide team, and brings the planner to court, the public would happily see the planner sentenced to the same term as would be passed down after a successful bombing and would disregard the intervention as a mitigating circumstance. The same, I'd have thought, would apply to a frustrated assassination or even a frustrated bank robbery. English law has always regarded the intention as seriously as it has regarded the act.

Or are you saying that had the proposed riot gone ahead you'd still regard four years for instigating it as excessive?

spot;1365882 wrote: The four will be two with parole, you know that. Just as oscar's two years served was from a longer sentence.

I've seen it said of this issue that if the security service frustrates a planned bombing before the planner recruits a suicide team, and brings the planner to court, the public would happily see the planner sentenced to the same term as would be passed down after a successful bombing and would disregard the intervention as a mitigating circumstance. The same, I'd have thought, would apply to a frustrated assassination or even a frustrated bank robbery. English law has always regarded the intention as seriously as it has regarded the act.

Or are you saying that had the proposed riot gone ahead you'd still regard four years for instigating it as excessive?


There was another case, about two days after this one, where the posters were let off without punishment. Now, obviously, I've seen neither of the offending posts so I cannot form a judgement on the degree of intent but there does appear to be a disconnect somewhere.

To answer your question more directly, not having seen the original post and, therefore, being unable to form a view of how likely is was that the "proposed riot" would ever have gone ahead, I cannot equate the two cases.

If there had been a riot as a direct consequence of the post then four years might well have been reasonable. That there was no such riot suggests that the post was not a serious attempt to cause one.

spot;1365817 wrote: What makes anyone think they're gang members?

I haven't the slightest problem with the pair being sentenced to four years apiece. I agree no riot eventuated from their daft web pages and nobody was hurt. They're still reasonable sentences, given the events of the week. Am I no longer of the left?


Who cares if they were gang members are not? So delete "gang" from the post and does it then make their actions less reprehensible?

No you are definitely on the left ... in fact you are so far on the left you are not even in the stadium anymore.

jones jones;1366078 wrote: Who cares if they were gang members are not? So delete "gang" from the post and does it then make their actions less reprehensible?

No you are definitely on the left ... in fact you are so far on the left you are not even in the stadium anymore.


I like that.

spot;1365882 wrote: The four will be two with parole, you know that. Just as oscar's two years served was from a longer sentence.



Do you not think that Judges and Magistrates are fully aware of sentences being halved for good behaviour when they Initially sentence?

jones jones;1366078 wrote: Who cares if they were gang members are not? So delete "gang" from the post and does it then make their actions less reprehensible?Yes, to a very large extent. It's central to the sentence, I'd have thought.

oscar;1366082 wrote: Do you not think that Judges and Magistrates are fully aware of sentences being halved for good behaviour when they Initially sentence?


Obviously, oscar. What's your point?

spot;1366089 wrote: Yes, to a very large extent. It's central to the sentence, I'd have thought.


So if you riot, burn, loot and pillage as a gang then your actions are .... ? As opposed to if you act alone as an individual?

It's only a riot if you act as a group. It's only organizing a riot if you attempt to involve others. English law is particularly harsh on riots, for good reason.

Ah, but therein lies the rub! How many earthlings do you have to incite before it becomes a riot as opposed to a gathering?

Field v Receiver of Metropolitan Police [1907] 2 KB 859:There are five necessary elements of a riot (i) number of persons, three at least; (ii) common purpose; (iii) execution or inception of the common purpose; (iv) an intent to help one another by force if necessary against any person who may oppose them in the execution of their common purpose; (v) force or violence not merely used in demolishing, but displayed in such a manner as to alarm at least one person of reasonable firmness and courage.

spot;1366106 wrote: Field v Receiver of Metropolitan Police [1907] 2 KB 859:There are five necessary elements of a riot (i) number of persons, three at least; (ii) common purpose; (iii) execution or inception of the common purpose; (iv) an intent to help one another by force if necessary against any person who may oppose them in the execution of their common purpose; (v) force or violence not merely used in demolishing, but displayed in such a manner as to alarm at least one person of reasonable firmness and courage.


Personally I prefer this definition which is a little more up to date.

The offence of riot is set out in Section 1 of the Public Order Act 1986:

"(1) Where 12 or more persons who are present together use or threaten unlawful violence for a common purpose and the conduct of them taken together is such as would cause a person of reasonable firmness present at the scene to fear for his personal safety, each of the persons using unlawful violence for the common purpose is guilty of riot.

(2) It is immaterial whether or not the 12 or more use or threaten unlawful violence simultaneously.(3) The common purpose may be inferred from conduct"

# (2) is more relevant apropos our discussion.

So if by way of the Internet you incite 12 or more earthlings to threaten unlawful violence, immaterial whether or not such 12 do so simultaneously, you are guilty.

Yes or no?

jones jones;1366113 wrote: Yes or no?I thought we were discussing rather than point-scoring. We were in the context of "if you riot, burn, loot and pillage as a gang then your actions are" and yes, the 1986 act (of which I was quite unaware, having learned these things a lot earlier) has divided the concept of Riot into two categories, Section 1 Riot (minimum participants 12) and Section 2 Violent Disorder (minimum participants 3). You're being deliberately selective, it strikes me, in just quoting Section 1.

It's immaterial in the case under discussion since absolutely nobody paid attention to the incitement. The incitement was, for all that, to riot. Read the Facebook page and it's quite apparent.

spot;1366115 wrote: I thought we were discussing rather than point-scoring. We were in the context of "if you riot, burn, loot and pillage as a gang then your actions are" and yes, the 1986 act (of which I was quite unaware, having learned these things a lot earlier) has divided the concept of Riot into two categories, Section 1 Riot (minimum participants 12) and Section 2 Violent Disorder (minimum participants 3). You're being deliberately selective, it strikes me, in just quoting Section 1.

It's immaterial in the case under discussion since absolutely nobody paid attention to the incitement. The incitement was, for all that, to riot. Read the Facebook page and it's quite apparent.




Now really, I am the type of guy who would want anything to do with "point scoring?" You bet your ass I would!

Okay I concede that in this particular case nobody paid any attention to the incitement, which in itself speaks volumes for the level headedness and determination of the vast majority English NOT to be drawn into anarchy. It is not in the psyche of the average inhabitant of England to behave in this way. I am well aware of this.



Perhaps we should move on a tad and consider how to count the cost of the riots, not in monetary terms, but in the loss of goodwill with the 2012 Olympic games in mind. Might not some person or persons use Facebook for instance, to incite a riot on the day of the opening ceremony and what would happen if this time a certain section of the community of London did NOT ignore the call?

I know there are a lot of ifs but it could happen.

I expressed the opinion a couple of weeks ago that the London Olympics should be cancelled now rather than allow the embarrassment of civil disruption while it's on.

spot;1366090 wrote: Obviously, oscar. What's your point?


To anyone who may believe that the sentences passed this week to looters Is harsh needs to realise that the Judge Is fully aware they may only serve half of the time given.

jones jones;1366097 wrote: So if you riot, burn, loot and pillage as a gang then your actions are .... ? As opposed to if you act alone as an individual? I think the key points to take Into consideration when sentencing Is Intent and Premeditation. Killers In this country often get a light sentence but the facts of the case may be that the killer did get up In the morning and decide to kill someone.

The rioting and looting was In the main, premeditated and In some cases, organised by gangs. It Is the premeditation and organisation that lead Judges to hand out stiffer sentences.

spot;1366118 wrote: I expressed the opinion a couple of weeks ago that the London Olympics should be cancelled now rather than allow the embarrassment of civil disruption while it's on.


Well its too late for that to ever become a reality. Anyway the police in England should by now be used to "hooliganism" and the excessive fan behavior made most notorious by the supporters of English soccer. This experience should stand them in good stead during the Olympics.

Although having said that, their "softly softly" approach during the recent rioting makes me question their resolve. Of course there were rumours that the threat of job cuts in the police force had something to do with their pussyfooting around the rioters.