Idiot Student Jailed

Really2

blueboy43 wrote: »

To be honest, a token custodial sentence (time served measured in weeks not years) plus a community sentence would be much more appropriate.

I think the main jist of the tread is the sentance has ruined his life.
In reality if it was 1 week or 6 years is not the issue with ruining his life.
It will be the criminal record which does that.

Has he really been singled out or is it similar to charges in the past for similar (but not as life threatening) offences.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/theguardian/2010/mar/13/gaza-protesters-sent-prison

What Yahia didn't realise was nearly all the protesters who pleaded guilty to violent disorder would end up receiving immediate prison sentences. His friend Sidali is serving two years. Yahia was in court the day Sidali was sentenced. "He didn't even throw sticks," he claims. "He just pushed or something, and his clothes were ripped a bit.

Some 22 protesters have already received prison terms of up to two and a half years for public order offences, and more cases are due to come before the courts in the coming months.

blueboy43

Really2 wrote: »

I think the main jist of the tread is the sentance has ruined his life.
In reality if it was 1 week or 6 years is not the issue with ruining his life.
It will be the criminal record which does that.

Has he really been singled out or is it similar to charges in the past for similar (but not as life threatening) offences.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/theguardian/2010/mar/13/gaza-protesters-sent-prison

interesting that.

Having looked at the sentence guidelines, it seems clear that you will get a stiffer sentence if the violent disorder is directed to or even in the vicinity of the police. Somewhat worrying when the police are using undercover agent provocateurs themselves.


The case you quoted is even worse - although most of the sentences were reduced on appeal.

Really2

blueboy43 wrote: »

interesting that.

Having looked at the sentence guidelines, it seems clear that you will get a stiffer sentence if the violent disorder is directed to or even in the vicinity of the police. Somewhat worrying when the police are using undercover agent provocateurs themselves.


The case you quoted is even worse - although most of the sentences were reduced on appeal.

I think a lot of the problem stems from pyche "I am in a big group I wont get caught, or I say I got caught up in the moment" due to previous big riots in the past.

The truth is partaking in a riot now is fair serious in terms of sentence.

But out of all of this at least he looks like he won't have any fees for studying over the next 3 years.

blueboy43

Really2 wrote: »

I think a lot of the problem stems from pyche "I am in a big group I wont get caught, or I say I got caught up in the moment" due to previous big riots in the past.

The truth is partaking in a riot now is fair serious in terms of sentence.

But out of all of this at least he looks like he won't have any fees for studying over the next 3 years.

This has always been the case - from the Peterloo massacre onwards.

It is an example where the state feels the need to demonstrate its might.

I suspect that this is one of the few areas where a jury (or the public) would be much more lenient if they were setting the sentence. Even Daily Mail mums will probably worry that their daft son of daughter could easily throw a stick or bottle if caught up on a march / out of control demo.

In almost every other area of sentencing the judiciary seem more liberal than the man on the clapham omnibus.

My other concern is the "acts as a deterrent". Most people with any sense will now make sure their clothing is not identifiable - and wear a plain hat to cover their hair. The more extreme will make sure they are balaclava'd up. Great deterrent.

Really2

blueboy43 wrote: »

Most people with any sense will now make sure their clothing is not identifiable - and wear a plain hat to cover their hair. The more extreme will make sure they are balaclava'd up. Great deterrent.

Anyone wanting to riot do that anyway, I would say it will discourage people being around those like you mentioned above.

There was many there already like that, the truth is if you want a peacefull protest keep away from the ones mentioned above let them get on with what they want to do and face the consequences.

If people do cover their faces they are saying they are not intent in peacful protest IMHO. Would make the polices job a bit easier if they wear a protest "uniform", you know who to target to stop trouble.

blueboy43

Really2 wrote: »

If people do cover their faces they are saying they are not intent in peacful protest IMHO.

A bit like the police removing their numbers when policing a demo ?

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23677372-police-should-be-punished-for-covering-up-id.do

Really2

blueboy43 wrote: »

A bit like the police removing their numbers when policing a demo ?

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23677372-police-should-be-punished-for-covering-up-id.do

Yes (need to fill up space just to answer:))

PhylPho

Protesters who so strongly identify with a cause that they decide to, er, hide their identity when protesting merit no respect. Protest is standing up (or sitting down) to be counted, making your voice heard and your face, seen.