don't plead guilty if you're not guilty?
One of the men sentenced to four years in jail for attempting to incite disorder on Facebook is to appeal against the decision. Jordan Blackshaw, 20, of Vale Road in Marston near Northwich, was thrown in the slammer, after appearing before a judge at Chester Crown Court yesterday. Chris Johnson, of Moss Haselhurst solicitors …
It's probably not too smart an idea, when looting is occurring in other parts of the country, to try and incite some in your own town (or anywhere else) and then claim after the fact that it was "only for a laugh". Myself I'm not quite sure what amusement comes if somebody does take you up on your offer.
Often dangerous driving is accidental or reckless. Posting on the Internet asking people to burn down buildings, smash up Police cars and throw things at the Police is quite a serious crime.
Police officers could have been killed. In the recent riots one was stabbed and now has lost his career as his confidence has been ruined.
Rebuilding and fitting a shop can cost quite a lot of money, £100,000 or so would be a rough guess.
These sentences are a great way of illustrating that while people have free speech they are ultimately responsible for what they say!
@Giles Jones, “These sentences are a great way of illustrating that while people have free speech they are ultimately responsible for what they say”
Talk about Cognitive Dissonance! … its both astounding and frightening you fail so totally to see the fundamental flaw in your logic. Ok lets take this step by step.
We all know trolls exist and we have all heard them say some deeply annoying and insulting and stupid and arrogant and etc.. things which we can all be very annoyed about. However the act of saying something is different from the act of doing something. They are two separate actions. Yet what we are seeing now is a way of punishing thoughts, not just actions. “Ah but these are terrible thoughts, right?”. True they are, but once you have a way of punishing thoughts, who's thoughts become the baseline upon which everyone else's thoughts get compared as right or wrong? “Ah but these are terrible thoughts and we will only punish the terrible thoughts right?” … Wrong. Exhibit A:
The above link is about police arresting a man for arranging a mass water pistol fight so people can have a laugh and meet up in the hot weather. Its purely for fun. Yet now, its an arrestable offense to arrange a gathering of people to play with water pistols! “Ah but we can argue thats just a few people taking the law way to far, right?” Wrong, because where one can take the law too far, others can as well. The law has to be right or wrong, we cannot have subjective laws and thought crime most definitely is subjective, because nothing has been done, only said.
Still not convinced? Ok here's Exhibit B, (and this is a big one shown throughout history) because whenever people have to protest against politicians, the one reoccurring constant is that the politicians are always in complete passive aggressive denial that they have ever done anything wrong. The reason that is important is because as far as the politician is concerned, its everyone arguing against them that is wrong. They hold the attitude of how dare people protest against me, and incite anger and hatred against me. That is how they think. That is how a passive aggressive thinks. The politician in their mind plays the passive aggressive victim (as all passive aggressive do). That kind of person would do all they could to punish anyone speaking out and arranging protests against them and we have all seen that repeated throughout history and around the word in the past year (people to this day are still dying because of it). Yet we have all in our fear of the rioters just handed the politician their biggest prize. Public consent for the punishment of thoughts. Have we as a society learned nothing from the old saying “He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither.”
The evil bastards who were the rioters showed repeated strong warning signs of being very aggressive Narcissistic Personality Disordered people and that is at the very least, (due to their incredible lack of empathy for other people). I say at the very least, because some even demonstrated psychopathic levels of lacking any empathy what so ever for other people. They all have to be punished and stopped, but these people are not acting on the words that are told to them, by people online or off, (even if they try to use that as yet another lying excuse), because they are acting on their own desire to be evil to other people for their own gain as always with Narcissistic people.
The enemy in society is the actions of the Narcissistic people, not the words they say. What is missing about every political condemnation of what the Narcissistic say online is the fact that others online, (the vast majority of people in fact) will respond and speak out online against anything the trolling Narcissistic people say. Its actually good that the evil bastards are highlighting what bastards they are online because society can speak out against them and highlight them for what they are. Yet what we are now getting is simply prohibition of their words, that doesn't solve their hate filled attitudes. They are still filled with hatred at others, just as they are filled with hatred at the people who made them such Narcissistic self interested bastards in the first place (usually their parents who are just as much hate filled Narcissistic bastards). The point is they act on their own desires not on the word of others, so prohibition of words will not stop them. But prohibition of words will stop anyone who has to speak out against politicians, thereby destroying any feedback in society to stop politicians taking things to far (as they always do) because no one is then allowed to speak out against the state for fear of being punished for arranging protests against them.
Punishing thoughts as a society is horrifically dangerous. Also only a few months ago the UK was condemning Egypt for punishing what was said online, yet now we in our terror of the rioters are doing the exact same mistake!. WTF is wrong with some people that in their fear they give up all sense of freedom only to realize too late they have created another ultimately far bigger problem. How many times does this insanity have to be repeated throughout history before people finally learn!
... many politicians are narcissists. From the DSM-IV classification of mental disorders:
"[Narcissistic Personality Disorder is a] pervasive pattern of grandiosity (in fantasy or behavior), need for admiration, and lack of empathy, beginning by early adulthood and present in a variety of contexts, as indicated by five (or more) of the following:
(1) has a grandiose sense of self-importance (e.g., exaggerates achievements and talents, expects to be recognized as superior without commensurate achievements);
(2) is preoccupied with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance, beauty, or ideal love;
(3) believes that he or she is "special" and unique and can only be understood by, or should associate with, other special or high-status people (or institutions);
(4) requires excessive admiration;
(5) has a sense of entitlement, i.e., unreasonable expectations of especially favorable treatment or automatic compliance with his or her expectations;
(6) is interpersonally exploitative, i.e., takes advantage of others to achieve his or her own ends ;
(7) lacks empathy: is unwilling to recognize or identify with the feelings and needs of others ;
(8) is often envious of others or believes that others are envious of him or her ;
(9) shows arrogant, haughty behaviors or attitudes."
At the very least, I make that 1,3,5,6,7 and 9, and quite a few of them 2, 4 and 8. If you think that's a little unfair, try spending some time with a few of them.
"I'm the best man for the job of running the country" really should be a thought crime.
Think about some of the shit that DID happen in the riots. Including lives (and careers) lost.
Think about this, you could say that all he did was post a stupid message to FaceBook. The law (rightly IMHO) says that what he did was try and encourage people to repeat what happened last week.
Had people turned up, and a riot occurred, because he incited it he would be seen as responsible for what transpired. That's why the sentence, because his comments could demonstrably have led to a huge amount of damage, and even to death/loss of livelihood.
As others have said, death by dangerous driving is usually accidental. Given that a man died last week, posting a message encouraging people to riot again does seem to deserve a stronger sentence.
Whether he posted as a joke or not is irrelevant IMO, had people turned up and a new riot happened he'd be responsible for arranging it. Some people only need the tiniest prod to start acting up, so why the hell you'd try and get them all together (even in jest) is beyond me.
Not hugely different from Paul Chambers' Doncaster Airport Twitter bomb "joke", though in that instance it was clearly a misguided "joke", whereas this Facebook event could* have been interpreted as a serious invitation or appeal to riot.
I also can't stand the way all the stories say they got this sentence, despite "neither man's actions resulting in any rioting", as though this should make any difference as to whether it's wrong.
*I didn't see the actual page, so can't comment on whether it looked serious, or a joke.
A load of recent 'extreme' sentences are going to be knocked down in appeal, that way three 'angry mobs' are dealt with: the public, who want to see rioters & looters shot on sight / castrated / lose their benefits / thrown on the street / publicly flogged etc., the actual rioters / looters, who should eventually receive tough but fair sentences, and the press, who are the worst 'inciters' of all.
Rather expensive way to go about it though as the appeals process doubles the overall cost per case...
One could argue the convicted are going to appeal no matter what sentence is initially handed down, therefore a heavy initial sentence later halved on appeal might be about right.
I do think there is a lot of disparity between sentencing. People have received less for manslaughter and rape, which doesn't seem right (maybe they should have been higher).
He's still alive.
A Darwin nomination might have been forthcoming if;
Lots of thugs had turned up, and he turned around and said "fooled you, it was a joke, fuck off home" and they turned around and killed him.
But making a stupid decision isn't enough for a Darwin, you _have_ to die. Otherwise you've not actually removed yourself from the Gene Pool (does it count if you blow your bollocks off?)
to receive a Darwin Award. These awards are given for *removing yourself from the gene pool*, not necessarily killing yourself. So you can still receive one, for example, if you survive running around with a lit firework in your pocket and blowing your own balls off. As long as you are rendered incapable of reproducing by your stupidity (and haven't yet reproduced), you're eligible.
If I go to town and loot a shop as an adult I am 100% responsible for my actions and get the proper sentence (if caught). If someone incites me to go to town and loot a shop as an an adult I am 100% responsible for my actions and get the proper sentence AND the other guy is guilty for goading me into it and he/she gets a sentence. That makes more than 100% responsibility for the crime. If the act of incitement makes him partly to blame for what I did why doesn't my being incited take some of my guilt away?
If you and a friend decided to both hold guns to someone's head and pull the triggers at the same time, you'd both get a full sentence for murder, not half of one each.
In the example you give, two crimes would have been committed; rioting, and incitement to riot. Just because nobody turned up to the 'riot', except this idiot and the police, doesn't mean that he didn't commit the crime of incitement, just that nobody was quite stupid enough in this case to actually be incited to riot. He has been sentenced according to the severity of the crime he committed, not the severity (or absence) of crimes committed by others as a result.
If I shoot someone who is already dead I am not guilty of murder. You are dipping into Schroedinger territory there.
I am not talking about guilt I'm talking about responsibility. Either I bear all the responsibility for the crime or it is shared.
If I went out to buy a bottle of milk but somebody incited me to loot the shop then they must be partly responsible for my actions because without them it would not have happened. If they are partly responsible then I cannot be fully responsible. I can claim mitigation.
On the other hand if I am a competent (in the eyes of the law at least) adult and am 100% responsible for my actions then the inciter can have no responsibility for what I did, I made my own decision. I cannot have been incited and therefore incitement is not a crime.
Either you can say:
I can be induced to do something that I did not intend to do. Therefore what others say can change my actions. Therefore I am not in full control of my actions.
I am in full control of my actions. Therefore I cannot be induced to do something that I did not intend to do. Therefore what others say is of no consequence. Incitement means nothing.
you cannot say. I am in full control of my actions and so is he.
I incited you to go out and cause trouble (i.e. riot), without my 'arranging' it you might have stayed home watching TV.
You turn up to my 'riot' and then smash a few windows and nick a tv. I've not nicked that TV, so I'm not directly responsible for that, but I am responsible for you being there, which led to you nicking a tv.
No-one says that the inciter is in full control of the rioters actions, in fact that's kind of the point - it's impossible to be in control of the rioters actions. That's why you shouldn't incite riots.
There are areas that are considered so harmful (or potentially so) to society/human life that to incite them is considered a crime. Riots get out of control very quickly (were they ever under control?) and so it's considered dangerous to try and cause one.
To use a different 'crime', do you consider it wrong that people can be locked up for conspiracy to murder? After all, they didn't _actually_ kill the person in the end?
It doesn't work for everything though, although very few agree with theft, it would be overreaching to give a custodial for "conspiracy to steal" or "conspiracy to speed". The difference is in the potential for harm to be caused.
"I incited you to go out and cause trouble (i.e. riot), without my 'arranging' it you might have stayed home watching TV."
This is a very narrow use case. Inciting is not the same as publicising an event. I could just as easily been incited to turn up on my own and cause trouble.
"No-one says that the inciter is in full control of the rioters actions"
No but the law says the inciter has some control over my actions but it does not say I have less. I could not claim incitement as mitigation in sentencing. Under the law the total percentage of control over my actions is greater than 100%
"do you consider it wrong that people can be locked up for conspiracy to murder?"
Conspiracy involves some actual action on the part of the conspirator. An action that they are aware at the time will be part of the crime.
... that one of the posters was drunk, made the post went to sleep, woke up, realised what he had done, tried to delete the post, but was too late.
I don't know all the facts, but I would have thought that the failure to incite a riot would have attracted a lesser sentence, say community service?
@AC: Two completely separate cases. The drunk one clearly wasn't serious, although he was seriously stupid and caused some panic/concern in Warrington.
The other one, Blackshaw , was serious and did actually turn up -fortunately the only others who turned up to join him were the police.
You hear it all the time - my client acted out of character when he was drunk. So fucking what? Substitute cannabis for alcohol and see what happens to your mitigation. In fact substitute just about any other substance other than alcohol and see how much it "mitigates" the crime.
WTF is so special about alcohol that it magically excuses all sorts of shite from twats like this?
Oh and if the sentences get reduced on appeal then they will still have had a deterrent effect as they've obviously shocked the guardianistas amongst us, so what do you reckon they did to the twats involved mmmm?
If some poor sod got convicted for that dumb airport bomb joke then the sentences handed down to these two ARE proportional.
Having witnessed Judge Edwards passing sentence previously (not on the receiving end), I've always considered his sentences to be fair while still reflecting the severity of the offence. My opinion of him hasn't changed.
Comparing these two muppets to the airport tweet is wrong. That tweet was obviously a joke and it wasn't posted the day after a big airpot bomb either. Incitement carries heavy penalties because you are in effect responsible for the actions of everyone you encouraged and incited. The fact is they plead guilty to a very serious offence, their solicitor probably should have plead not guilty to the charges and try to go for a lesser offence.
Those who organise and encourage others to commit offences are far more guilty in my view than those who got swept up in the moment on the streets. While both are guilty the former has demonstrated a willingness to take on a far more active role.
The message was posted at a time when every man and his dog were using social networks and emails to organise the riots, so I don't really regard the sentences as unfair. The fact that coppers turned up as a result of his actions shows that significant police effort had to be diverted at a time when every force was trying to send every policeman able to stand upright to deal with the problems in the major cities is a clear indication of the reason for the severity of the sentence.
"I f**king hate Cheshire police" and similar pages don't come into it; they're expressions of opinion, not incitement to violence.
If the Government line is to be believed, they've got it the wrong way round anyway;
Alcohol - Legal as it's (allegedly) more controllable and safer
Cannabis - Illegal as it's (allegedly) less controllable and more dangerous
So if I smoke weed, surely based on the Governments line I'm less able to control what I'm doing, and therefore should mitigate more?
Yes it's illegal, but in both cases I _chose_ to take the substance
Sorry a little OT
If you organise a riot that no one turns up to you get 4 years.
But if you organise a protest where unfortunately a riot / disorder breaks out, like the student and cuts protests recently. Then you have no issues at all.
You see where I am going with this. Now precedent has been set, how long do you think before people who organise peaceful protests, that get hijacked by anarchists, find themselves in court?
I think in these two situations there is clear distinction: -
If a person attempts to incite\organise a riot their intentions are clear and the fact that no-one turns up does not change what they attempted to do.
Likewise if a person organises a protest and cleary intends for be peaceful and law abiding then no blame should be assigned to them for organising it if it becomes violent. Guilt should however be assigned to anyone who is involved in the actual violence.
"Likewise if a person organises a protest and cleary intends for be peaceful and law abiding then no blame should be assigned to them for organising it if it becomes violent."
Good luck with that. Plod consider anyone "organising" a protest to be responsible for the actions of everyne who turns up. That's why protest organisers don't want to work with the police.
It really doesn't matter if 1,000 people turn up or a single smurf turns up. The fact is they were both inciting a riot. Given the scale of other riots had they suceeded the cost to life or business would have been huge.
We are all responsible for our own actions so 4 years for planning to loot, cause hundreds of thousands of pounds of damage and even risk innocent deaths sounds light to me!
I agree to the custodial sentence, since a lesson needs to be learned and a message needs to go out to potential copycats. I don't agree with the length of 4 years. Is inciting others to riot worse than actually going out and rioting? Are people who are nabbed for nicking a TV or smashing in a shop front going to get 5-6 years?
I think 1 year to 18 mths would be plenty provided they actually serve it all. Or are judges now giving 4 years in full knowledge that less than half teh sentence will actually be served?
Doesnt that cover the crime of killing a senior police officer?
The protesters were attacked by police, that much is fact.
The rioters were from areas that have had multiple problems with bad/abusive police officers, that much is fact.
The various police officers over the last few years who have done unspeakable things and got away with it (child porn while being support officers to the Soham families is just one) with either a dont do it again, or a kindly "look at the poor guy, seeing that 16 year old girl splashed all over his windscreen at 90mph has given him nightmares" as they let him walk free after committing nothing more less than murder, and THEN his collegues slag the dead teen off at the inquest in front of the family no less...? All that has been widely reported and you can be sure hasnt helped the cops reputation anywhere.
If you have to wonder why the riots happened you need to look no further than the media and the police as the instigators of it. Their actions directly led to the bad feeling which led to the riots. But they get away scot free yet again...?!? What is up with that?
Yes, taking to the streets and burning peoples homes and businesses, assaults, deaths and the like... all bad things for which the CORRECT people should be punished CORRECTLY. Using it as a police excuse to harass and score points off people the police/govt dont like, thank you but no.
Has anyone actually realised that some of their council tax and income taxes go to the police - how would it be if everyone refused to pay that part of it, ive been on the edge of doing that myself more than once in the last 2 years. If you cant hit them with intelligent argument, or get them to keep to what they say they are going to do to improve things, hit them in their wallet.
Since the first rant of yours the other day, I've been looking forward to more of your broad strokes slagging off the police. Shame you don't follow your own argument about going after the right people - you simply argue that the police are all bad. Good to see something close to an actual cited case this time round, rather than vague references to police crimes which they obviously all commit, though. Brilliant. Keep 'em coming. Go ahead with the taxes thing too - sounds like a really well thought-out plan. You do plan to actually stand up rather than talk about it, don't you?
Nice an idea as it sounds, refusing to pay any part of your council tax leads to one place - prison. And just to rub it in, it's the one crime (AFAIK) where they still require you to pay council tax whilst inside!
Round here we have two types of copper - good and scumbag. The difference between the two is huge, but the good do outnumber the scumbags. The problem is that the scumbags are so scummy that it tilts favour against the old bill as a whole.
Personally, I'd say only an idiot can feel justified in making an argument involving applying a single label to one very large group. The old bill aren't 'crap', some of them are, but not all of them. You can't base opinions of a group on a few experiences (of quite a biased sample - how often do you hear about the coppers that just do their job?).
We only get proper sentences when it's a knee jerk reaction.
Less than a month ago a group of chav scum with long history of crime get a referral order for raiding sheds, nicking bikes and arson. We couldn't even get a curfew on them and they laughed there way home yet throw in a riot and nick a doughnut and you get 6 months.
Temporary knee jerk justice will only highlight other sentences for the joke they are.
Or perhaps an Orwellian note : ( I will be showing my teenagers daughters all these comments and pointing out the stupidity of doing anything on Facebook or any social network site 'for a laugh or not as the case may be'. I will be also giving them lessons in annon (ish) techniques and sites they can use in relative safety . . . This is all wrong imo . . .
Helicopters ... cause this is just the start...
With comments like "Shooting a body thats already (brain)dead - doesnt that cover the crime of killing a senior police officer?", it's not too difficult to see where your prejudices lie.
You say "If you have to wonder why the riots happened you need to look no further than the media and the police as the instigators of it. Their actions directly led to the bad feeling which led to the riots."
NO NO NO. DON'T go all bleeding-heart and excuse these prats who went rioting, looting, setting fire to houses, and KILLING people by saying it's not their fault, poor little diddums, they had no choice because of nasty Mr Plod.
Just ... no.
You would find out that is not what I said. Repeatedly. More than once.
Yes, I do think cops are generally so far beyond fsckwit that they'd need a 2 year course to drag themselves to that level. But then, their inaction and stupidity cost me three visits to hospital and having to deal with a friend being killed.
I do not agree with rioting, but I agree far less with Police wading in on a peaceful protest for the simple reason they got caught out shooting someone who they claimed would/did shoot first. The fact the IPCC said he didnt, means even *they* couldnt get the police off.
If you commit a crime, you get punished, fairly. That is the correct way.
Going after a girl because she was at an animal rights protest 2 years ago, and trying to jail her even though she can prove she was 200 miles away.. Not so correct.
Jailing a guy for using the riot as an excuse for putting a bullet in someone, fair go. Trying to do the same to a bunch of lads with water pistols ffs? Not so correct again.
A piglet taking bribes, ignoring pertinent information, including his own voicemail being hacked, is allowed to leg it into the sunset. You take bribes as a normal citizen, boy do you get a different treatment. Unless you are a big company, then you get off.
The Police exist for two reasons. Protection of the public and solving crime. They have shown themselves criminally inept at both these tasks so many times now that it beggars belief. Worried mother asks for police protection from an ex who has access to guns, REFUSED, mother and youngest daughter subsequently tortured then shot. But Im sure you can convince her older sister that the Police are great.
Same situation again, protection refused, mother and two kids knifed repeatedly, 2 of the 3 so badly that they barely survive and spend time on ICU being put back together.
Shall I go on?
My personal experience with the police over 23 years has been one of constant and epic fail that makes homers oddessy look like a book for the under 5's. I know I am not alone in this, and it has damaged my health and put my life in jeopardy more than once. So you will excuse me if is my lifelong wish that I could learn Miss Achings trick with the fire, hand, and poker - and have Assistant Chief Constable Mason tied down in a suitable position.
Ive not said a single thing different since this debacle started and isnt it strange that where at the start I was sociopathic nutter of the week, people are now starting to mark me up? Im tired of repeating myself, but hey, I DONT agree with rioting and looting, nor assault, assault on a child in my presence would result in a corpse in short order (parts later found hanging from trees and down rabbit holes), burning homes and businesses, again with the no, running down other people, nope there too But neither do I approve of police brutality, inaction, ineptness and borderline criminal stupidity as led to London 2011.
And yes, to answer the other question, im seriously considering withdrawing my share of monies paid to the local police. I dont mind paying for a service, but since I haved never HAD a service from them, why should money I dont really have to spare go to pay their pensions?
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019