WU LYF 4 LYF Posted August 16, 2011 Share Posted August 16, 2011 (edited) Four years is insane. Some dude who was actually IN the riots stealing clothes only got a day, and these two get four years for posting something online. Screams of selective, random justice to me. I'm not saying these are nice people or even that they didn't deserve to be punished, but this is a complete miscarriage of justice. Â Surely it's the intent that counts? Attempted murder is a crime, isn't it? Â Attempted murder is a crime whereby you actually hurt the person with intent to murder, but the victim survives. You need both the attempt and the action. The equivalent would be these guys outside smashing things trying to start a riot but not causing one. This is completely different - there is simply intent to riot, no evidence of actions behind the words. Edited August 16, 2011 by RIP Diva Sunny Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magnum Posted August 16, 2011 Share Posted August 16, 2011 I'm struggling to summon an emotional response to that story, but most of my thoughts arising from it involve Mr Pink and tiny imaginary violins. He'll serve two years at most anyway, and I'm sure some of his mates will set up a facebook group in support of him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
big mickey Posted August 16, 2011 Author Share Posted August 16, 2011 4 years?? Sounds a bit steep, but the guy only has himself to blame, his actions could have had serious consequences, so oh well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tommy Atkins Posted August 16, 2011 Share Posted August 16, 2011 (edited) Four years is insane. Some dude who was actually IN the riots stealing clothes only got a day, and these two get four years for posting something online. Screams of selective, random justice to me. I'm not saying these are nice people or even that they didn't deserve to be punished, but this is a complete miscarriage of justice.   Attempted murder is a crime whereby you actually hurt the person with intent to murder, but the victim survives. You need both the attempt and the action. The equivalent would be these guys outside smashing things trying to start a riot but not causing one. This is completely different - there is simply intent to riot, no evidence of actions behind the words. I'm fairly sure that shooting someone but missing is classed as attempted murder as well. So is trying to hire hitmen to kill someone.  The fact that the guy was too inept to actually start a riot shouldn't be an issue. The actions are setting up the facebook page. It's no different to Islamic preachers trying to promote violence, or the BNP, or homophobic types trying to incite people to attack the people they hate.  Edit: Hiring hitmen to kill someone might not be classed as attempted murder but it's certainly a serious crime that will get you at least 4 years in prison. Edited August 16, 2011 by Tommy Atkins Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WU LYF 4 LYF Posted August 16, 2011 Share Posted August 16, 2011 (edited) I'm fairly sure that shooting someone but missing is classed as attempted murder as well. Â Yes, but simply starting a group online saying you were going to shoot someone would not be classed as attempted murder, merely intent to murder. Your analogies are absurd. Â So is trying to hire hitmen to kill someone. Â But he wasn't trying to 'hire' anyone. He simply posted online his intent to riot and asked for assistance. He took no action towards actually rioting. Â He has the intent but has not committed the crime, and as such four years is ridiculously excessive especially in comparison to the sentences of some of those who actually did riot and loot. Edited August 16, 2011 by RIP Diva Sunny Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tommy Atkins Posted August 16, 2011 Share Posted August 16, 2011 (edited) The people that riot and loot were individuals committing individual crimes. The person that has been jailed for 4 years was trying to incite many people to commit crimes. Â I don't think it's harsh at all. People have been jailed for longer for trying to incite violence. People that have come out saying that gays should be killed have been given far longer sentences than other people have for carrying out individual homophobic attacks. Â edit: Inciting people to riot IS the crime. The fact that he didn't incite anyone is by the by. Edited August 16, 2011 by Tommy Atkins Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobbins Posted August 16, 2011 Share Posted August 16, 2011 The other problem with Milliband besides his rubber-mask looks, is that he's quite obviously some sort of PR robot. If you haven't seen it before, check out this classic BBC interview where he gives the same answer again and again regardless of the question.  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PZtVm8wtyFI  He's just not human! Ahem... http://blogs.channel4.com/gurublog/changin...-interview/1472 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glen Quagmire Posted August 16, 2011 Share Posted August 16, 2011 MP who fraudulently stole Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
patiirc Posted August 16, 2011 Share Posted August 16, 2011 I stepped off the pace for a few days, but suspending social networks and curfews and the such like, when did we become Iran/Burma et al? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kiffy Posted August 16, 2011 Share Posted August 16, 2011 Could they not have used the "I was joking," defense? I suggested rioting to various friends on facebook, without any intent to be involved. Or was I just lucky that no-one reported me? Either way, seems a little draconian. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magnum Posted August 17, 2011 Share Posted August 17, 2011 (edited) Could they not have used the "I was joking," defense? I suggested rioting to various friends on facebook, without any intent to be involved. Or was I just lucky that no-one reported me? Either way, seems a little draconian. Â I'd love to see that defence used, if only to see a legal debate over 'the presence of satirical intent'. I reckon one look at this goon's mugshot establishes that the capacity for satire is absent in this case. Â I can see why many people think this sentence is harsh - though personally, I'm happier for sentences arising from the riots to err on that side than be too lenient. I do think it's a tricky area at the moment though, as the new technology of the social media creates new dangers to law and order - it could be argued that, using facebook in this way, a thick chav lump like this lad has the potential to incite far more people to violence than Abu Hamza has by standing ranting outside a mosque, for instance. As such, new punishments are needed to take this into account, and the government and judiciary are clearly feeling their way into this at the moment. Edited August 17, 2011 by Magnum Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smeg_&_The_Heads Posted August 17, 2011 Share Posted August 17, 2011 Could they not have used the "I was joking," defense? I suggested rioting to various friends on facebook, without any intent to be involved. Or was I just lucky that no-one reported me? Either way, seems a little draconian. Â I think there is a bit of a difference in sending a message saying "lets go and loot Asda lol" and setting up a Facebook page trying to arrange one if they arrested everyone who sent a joking message half the people who use Facebook in the UK would be doing time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members DJ Kris Posted August 17, 2011 Paid Members Share Posted August 17, 2011 MP who fraudulently stole Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Dead Mike Posted August 17, 2011 Paid Members Share Posted August 17, 2011 My main concern is that this case now sets a precedent for people using social networking for mobilising protests. What if you set up a march for a perfectly legitimate reason that the government don't like? It's not like we haven't seen anti-terror laws exploited before. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glen Quagmire Posted August 17, 2011 Share Posted August 17, 2011 I'm just surprised they didn't use the defence that their accounts were fraped Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts