For the record,
Neither of the people convicted had any prior convictions.
(
IHaveABadFeelingAboutThis most likely working from home on, Wed 17 Aug 2011, 9:35,
Reply)
I think it's ok
as long as the arsonists and assault/muggers also get sentences as long as can be given out.
Oh, and anyone parked by a meter for more than 2 days without topping it up should get their burnt out car clamped.
But I suspect it will never be a fair unbiased system so ambiguities will always happen.
(
Professor Fnord Regius Professor of B3ta Chronology, Wed 17 Aug 2011, 9:42,
Reply)
Maybe they shouldn't be stupid kids.
Now they are forever condemned to the jobless scrapheap at the bottom of our society. Anyone who knows even the slightest about criminology will tell you that prison is effectively the university of crime: go in as an amateur and come out as a professional.
Nice one legal system! Two more career criminals for privatised prison services to make a tidy sum off of over the next 20-40 years (at taxpayers' expense).
Fuck anyone who thinks this is a good idea. Fuck them in the face.
(, Wed 17 Aug 2011, 10:06, Reply)
Exactly!!
My idea of smashing their finger bones with a hammer is cheap, quick and excruciatingly painful. It also means that they would not have to go to prison and avoid all the stuff you pointed out.
Maybe give them the choice though so that they can play a role in their own rehabilitation process. Let them choose fingers or toes to be smashed, in any combination.
(, Wed 17 Aug 2011, 10:14, Reply)
MESSAGE FROM THE POLICE:
YOU ARE INCITING GRIEVOUS BODILY HARM ON THE INTERNETS! YOU MUST BE PUNISHED! 10 YEARS IN THE NICK FOR YOU SONNY JIM...wait, B3ta is anonymous...this might require some technical proficiency to investigate...fuck it.
(, Wed 17 Aug 2011, 10:24, Reply)
true
although from what I've read, nothing happened...so in effect they've been sent to prison for inciting an event that didn't happen. I've read a lot of stuff on facebook that can be taken the same way, will certainly be food for thought. 'storm the parliament if they close hospital x' etc etc. I've had loads of invites to imaginary events in the last year which are just protest pages (I'm not comparing that to their page at all) but if I lived in England I'd be reluctant to click 'attending' on some of them now...
(, Wed 17 Aug 2011, 10:10, Reply)
Exactly. How about political activist groups like UKuncut or environmentalists?
A lot of what they do falls foul of some archaic law, and it is on this basis that they are generally arrested at or after their protests (while the CPS almost always throws the case out because it won't stand up in court).
Will it be incitement to express a desire to stage a protest? Where do they draw the line?
Our country marching at pace towards a very dark future. All of the people whose response to the riots was "OMG BANG EM UP! THA ANIMALS!" or "[insert reactionary garbage driven by fear/hatred here]" are metaphorically holding hands and skipping along with the stern police officer and smug politician (who thinks you're all idiots, don't prove him right) that are leading us there.
(, Wed 17 Aug 2011, 10:20, Reply)
I feel like you've missed the distinction
between a protest and a riot. Organizing a bunch of your mates to make a political point is within the law. Organizing a bunch of your mates to go smash stuff up and nick things isn't.
(
evil_andy Stick stick stick stick sticky sticky stick stick, Wed 17 Aug 2011, 11:33,
Reply)
Then again sometimes the line gets blured
A lot of protests these days end up smashing stuff up as if
they think this is the natural order for a protest.
So if this sets a precedent someone creating a FB page encouraging people
to smash up fortnum and masons would be subject to the same punishment.
(
Cerebus Sticky! Sticky! Stick! Stick!, Wed 17 Aug 2011, 12:02,
Reply)
No. My point is that law makes no distinction between the two, depending on how it is applied.
Especially when there is pressure from the Home Office to "make an example" and "send a message that this sort of behaviour won't be tolerated".
See here: www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/jul/24/uk-uncut-fortnum-mason-police
In fact, the riots in Tottenham started as a political protest, in spite of what they became on the following nights in Hackney et al.
The G20 protests were called "riots" too, but they were purely political, the same goes for the student's tuition protests. Both were met with politically motivated policing tactics that were disproportionately harsh. It can be a very fine line.
(, Wed 17 Aug 2011, 12:05, Reply)
Surely the line is when you put down the placard and pick up a brick?
Just because you're doing it out anger towards a policy doesn't
negate the fact that smashing stuff up is against the law.
A protest is supposed to change things by either gathering enough
of the people behind you so come an election you can vote out the cunts.
Or make said cunts afraid of being voted out at the next election they
change now in the hope you'll vote for them again.
Just because you call something a protest does not excuse you from acting within the law.
Also, No socialist worker banner = Not a protest.
Didn't see one banner during these events.
[edit]
As a case in point. Let's bring up the BNP, NF EDL etc.
Now they would much rather this country was a little whiter.
Would it be an acceptable protest if they were to travel to an area and smash in shops owned my non-whites? Or burn down the houses of refugees?
In their head it's a protest.
(
Cerebus Sticky! Sticky! Stick! Stick!, Wed 17 Aug 2011, 12:52,
Reply)
I'm not going to dispute the difference between rioting and protesting, nor am I going to defend people who wilfully cause harm to other people.
You are correct in your distinction. But I will say this:
The article I linked to should demonstrate how the authorities are prepared to manipulate existing laws to punish political protesters, especially non-violent protesters, in an effort to prevent future protest.
What I'm trying to say is this: If they can put you down for 4 years for advocating a riot that never took place, how long before they extend that principle and lock up political activists who call for or suggest a protest, such as the Fortnum & Masons occupation, on the pretext that what they are advocating may break a law?
On legal grounds there isn't a distinction between motivations.
So if I said "we should occupy the TopShop on Oxford Street because billionaire owner Phillip Green pays less tax than me" on Facebook I could be arrested for 'inciting people to break the law'. Which law? Something like a 'public order offence' or 'Breach of the Queen's Peace' which is generally what political activists get locked up for.
This isn't too much of a stretch of either the imagination or the legal precedent that this case has set. How hard is that to grasp?
(, Wed 17 Aug 2011, 13:58, Reply)
Well if your occupying a building against the wishes of the owner then you are breaking the law.
What you have to ask yourself is if you believe in the cause enough to take the punishment.
Also you site the example of the F&M "occupation". That was miles away from the violent protests
the these two were convicted of trying to provoke. The police would probably use the law to
get the FB page taken down though not likely to earn you a 4 year span.
I don't get this generation with their attitude to direct action. The Animal Liberation Front never expected
to be let off if they were caught. The hunger strikers never expected last minute medical intervention.
You believe in a cause enough you decide to act outside of the law then bear in mind two things.
1) Be prepared to get caught and do the time knowing that it is worth it.
2) Hope that the public sympathise with you and vote along those lines encourage by your example.
Do not hijack someone else's protest march that they bothered to organise and set out an agreed route.
Do not break the law expecting daddies lawyer to sort everything out as it's just jolly japes.
And remember just because it's a left wing protest don't expect to be treated any lighter than if it were a rightwing one. To give a mirror image of your F&M occupation. What if the EDL started occupying mosques?
(
Cerebus Sticky! Sticky! Stick! Stick!, Wed 17 Aug 2011, 15:48,
Reply)
I'm not saying it's wrong
Just replying to Zachery's point.
(
IHaveABadFeelingAboutThis most likely working from home on, Wed 17 Aug 2011, 10:45,
Reply)