75ZT Community

geesmith wrote:I also now think the two "Facebook riot inciters" should be set free following appeal in view of the facts (i.e. no riot occurred in the area and no previous bad behaviour - more stupid folly than actual incitement - when seen retrospectively).

Cannot quite get my head around the difference of riots happening and not happening. The actions by these two were clearly aimed at starting a riot it is just fortunate that others did not take up their cause. There was clear intent.

I understand your thoughts Paul. As I said, I do appear to be banging from one bumper to another with this. My thoughts were that it appears that these two numpties hadn't thought before typing. The fact that they are of previous good character has some weight. The fact that others in their locale had more sense is probably fortunate chance.
Perhaps a stewing period with time to reflect on the prospect of 4 years incarceration would ensure that these two never run that risk again. The nature of their offence should open them to investigation over their previous online behaviour. I am aware that there are people out there that will never appear when the trouble kicks off but will always be at the front during the instigation phase. I once thumped one at school when he was obviously setting someone up for a beating that he fancied watching.
I'm just balancing what they did and their previous history against the repeat multiple offenders that appear to be getting off with slapped wrists after physically participating in the riots.

It does highlight the fact that we need clear guidelines on sentencing for these situations for the future so that people are aware of the risks. It's good that people now realise they can't just behave as they wish on the social networking sites.

Just as a matter of interest, if there is any, here are the sentencing remarks of two Circuit Judges in Manchester recently.


http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/Resources/JCO/Documents/Judgments/sentencing-remarks-hhj-atherton-r-v-twemlow-and-others.pdf

http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/Resources/JCO/Documents/Judgments/hhj-gilbart-qc-sentencing-remarks-r-v-carter-others.pdf

It makes pretty depressing reading, especially the second one with the graphic description of the whole scene.

Thanks for posting that up Paul, the line that stands out is surely.."Those who choose to take part in activities of this type must
understand that they do so at their peril."
A benchmark needs to be set to stop anything like this happening again,goods and shops can eventually be replaced but someones life,let alone being injured and the sheer trauma of those law abiding citizens caught up in the events of those awful nights are there for a long time to come.

You'll note that there were no cases of violent disorder.

Another interesting one, I think.

http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/media/judgments/2011/r-v-ahmed-pelle-sentencing-remarks-25082011

Does anybody else find these of any interest? If not I'll not waste bandwidth but if they are of interest I'll continue to add as and when an interesting (or topical) judgement comes up.

Don't worry about bandwidth, we are set up so we can max out the entire servers allocation when and if necessary.
I've found them very interesting.

You know me Paul, always interested.

The first of the Wolverhampton mob were sentenced yesterday by my very good friend John Warner.

http://www.expressandstar.com/news/2011/08/27/wolverhampton-riot-yobs-are-behind-bars/

Bearing in mind that these were after one third reduction for early guilty plea and were for dishonesty offences rather than violent disorder, I'd say that they were just about right.