It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

English duo get 4 years for inciting riots on facebook

page: 2
7
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 17 2011 @ 09:10 AM
link   
reply to post by thenitrous666
 


But oh my that water bottle theft contributed to the death of so many and countless millions lost I'm sure! sick I know..




posted on Aug, 17 2011 @ 09:12 AM
link   
reply to post by Mike_A
 


Mike, again you miss the point. It's not about juggling tarriffs after the fact. It's about how the establishment sent these two down for longer than if they were sex cases.

How the hell can society justify that?



posted on Aug, 17 2011 @ 09:28 AM
link   
First post myself. New member come a few days ago but a long time guest.

This seems a fair sentence to myself. I understand a riot didn't occur but in reality it may have happened. What if a riot had started and an innocent by stander or an officer trying to control the situation is injured or killed? Yes the party who committed the act should be punished, but the individuals who started the riot should also be held accountable. They are the one who created this chain of reaction.

There is a correct way to voice your arguments against whoever in this world. The illegal method never succeeds, unfortunately many do not understand this concept.



posted on Aug, 17 2011 @ 09:32 AM
link   
Shocking.


If only justice had been this swift and harsh to the MPS who LOOTED tax payers money to fund their life styles...

Of course, theirs was just a "moment of madness" or an "oversight" or..I love this one.." a clerical oversite", whilst stealing a bottle of water or encouraging rioting is "sheer criminality".

The hypocrisy which is displayed in English politics is shocking in its nature.

The complacency of the English people who allow it, is depressing.



posted on Aug, 17 2011 @ 09:51 AM
link   
reply to post by SprocketUK
 



Mike, again you miss the point. It's not about juggling tarriffs after the fact.


They’re not, the guidelines allow for a sentence of up to 10 years for their offence.



posted on Aug, 17 2011 @ 09:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mike_A
reply to post by SprocketUK
 



Mike, again you miss the point. It's not about juggling tarriffs after the fact.


They’re not, the guidelines allow for a sentence of up to 10 years for their offence.


Are you just avoiding the point or what?
When I pointed out the discrepancies between this sentence and those given to rapists you suggested upping sentences for these to bring some sense back, that's what my point was about...or are you just trolling?



posted on Aug, 17 2011 @ 10:05 AM
link   
reply to post by SprocketUK
 


Sorry, I misread that sentence.


When I pointed out the discrepancies between this sentence and those given to rapists you suggested upping sentences for these to bring some sense back, that's what my point was about


Then I don’t see your point; what was wrong with what I’ve said?

Rape can carry a lesser sentence than that given to these two; that’s bad, I agree. However that does not mean that the sentence given to these two is itself wrong, that is my point.



posted on Aug, 17 2011 @ 10:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mike_A
reply to post by SprocketUK
 


Sorry, I misread that sentence.


When I pointed out the discrepancies between this sentence and those given to rapists you suggested upping sentences for these to bring some sense back, that's what my point was about


Then I don’t see your point; what was wrong with what I’ve said?

Rape can carry a lesser sentence than that given to these two; that’s bad, I agree. However that does not mean that the sentence given to these two is itself wrong, that is my point.




Well, that WAS my point, if judges routinely dish out lighter sentences for things such as rape without getting fired, then that implies that those in charge of the judicial system are happy. To then go and send two halfwits down for four years tells me that they (and by extension) the system sees anything to do with theft or damage to commercial property as more onerous than crimes against human beings.



posted on Aug, 17 2011 @ 10:24 AM
link   
reply to post by SprocketUK
 


But you started the thread saying that this was “a disgusting sentence”; it’s not this sentence that’s disgusting it’s the relatively lax sentences that are given out for what most would consider more serious crimes.



posted on Aug, 17 2011 @ 10:32 AM
link   
reply to post by Mike_A
 


I didn't start the thread. I did, however say it was a disgusting sentence. I still hold that view. Community service would be more appropriate, hell even that is more than mps get for stealing thousands.



posted on Aug, 17 2011 @ 10:34 AM
link   
I just heard that people wanted them to get LONGER!!

Damn this country is finished.

ALS



posted on Aug, 17 2011 @ 10:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by Merigold
If only justice had been this swift and harsh to the MPS who LOOTED tax payers money to fund their life styles...

and...

Originally posted by Merigold
The complacency of the English people who allow it, is depressing.


To be fair on politicians. Not all acted criminally and those few who did have spent time at Her Majesty's Pleasure. Others who acted on the borderline honesty or were basically dishonest have been thrown out by the electorate, proving that the English people (surely, you mean British) have not acted with complacency.

To topic.

Great. I say that we should throw the book at these people. They have collectively and purposefully gone out of their way to smash and grab. It must not be tolerated and they have stepped over a social norm which we in a civilised society should not tolerate. This is why there is public outcry.

To appease those who think they have been hard done by, you can be consoled by the fact that either they will get early release and / or they will appeal and get the sentence reduced.

Regards



posted on Aug, 17 2011 @ 10:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by SprocketUK
reply to post by Mike_A
 


Mike, again you miss the point. It's not about juggling tarriffs after the fact. It's about how the establishment sent these two down for longer than if they were sex cases.

How the hell can society justify that?


Indeed. Clearly we should have sent those convicted of sex offences to prison for much longer.

Thing about it
The problem isn;t with people get too harsh a sentence, but with others getting too lenient a one.



posted on Aug, 17 2011 @ 10:43 AM
link   
reply to post by ALOSTSOUL
 


Yeah, what all the hang em high brigade are forgetting is that its not merely their own rights that they're pi$$ing away, its everyone's rights, including those yet unborn who'll have cause to to rue this generation's scorn.

(Sorry about the poetry at the end, watched Henry V again and it kind of gets under your skin...I needed to lighten my mood anyway, getting too grumpy).


Essan...you quoted my post, but obviously failed to read it...
edit on 17-8-2011 by SprocketUK because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 17 2011 @ 10:46 AM
link   
reply to post by SprocketUK
 


I meant when you first entered the thread.

So why is it a disgusting sentence?

If the judicial system is meant to deter and punish crime then the question is would a community order do either?

As I said earlier, if you watch the interviews of the rioters then a common theme is the belief that any punishment that they would receive would be lax, if the more usual sentencing does not offer a deterrent then that needs to be addressed.

Since the idea of appropriate punishment is subjective I think the generally feeling of the public should be taken into account. My impression from the comments that I’ve read/heard is that the British public feel that sentences both in the context of the riots and in general should be harsher than they are.

Also the offender’s knowledge of the potential consequences should be taken into account; this is not merely a case of being arrested for writing some words. These two must have known that by inciting a riot mass looting, arson and violence would likely occur; one of them certainly knew this because he turned up for the riot he tried to organise. That’s why this is different to someone on here writing “we should rise up”; the person on ATS has no reasonable expectation of anyone actually doing what they said, the two sentenced today had every reason to expect that people would listen and act.

Edit to add –


Yeah, what all the hang em high brigade are forgetting is that its not merely their own rights that they're pi$$ing away


No one’s rights have been violated, this sentence was within the guidelines given to the courts before the riots; those who commit crime should not expect to necessarily be given a sentence at the lower end of the scale.

edit on 17-8-2011 by Mike_A because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 17 2011 @ 10:48 AM
link   
Thought this deserves a place in this thread;


"It is often said that justice delayed is justice denied, but justice rushed can be justice denied as well" - Paul Mendelle


ALS



posted on Aug, 17 2011 @ 10:51 AM
link   
reply to post by SprocketUK
 


I worry about the wider implication of this outcry, especially due to the fact that riots and protest are only going to get worse.

ALS



posted on Aug, 17 2011 @ 10:52 AM
link   
reply to post by Mike_A
 


That's a bit of a fallacy, if jail is about deterrence, then 20 years inside for parking on zig zags should be mandatory, and why then are burgularies, muggings and assaults not dealt with more severely? These lads got 4 years cos the powers that be are corrupt. Any hint of organised opposition by the lower classes always gets stamped on. Whether its just or no.

Edit to add I don't think there's much more worth saying by me, I've made my opposition plain and others have made their support plain. Rather than continuing to go around and around I'm buggering off to concentrate on work, cos while I'd love to only have 2 jobs, rather than three, this one pays the most and I don't want to get fired. :-)
edit on 17-8-2011 by SprocketUK because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 17 2011 @ 10:57 AM
link   
reply to post by Mike_A
 


It is my understanding that punishment should be in proportion with the act. I could get on board if it was an arson who got 4 years but a lenghty sentence for inciting a failed riot is completely unjustified.

ALS



posted on Aug, 17 2011 @ 10:59 AM
link   
It is very heavy handed but I can see why they are coming down hard on everyone associated with the riots. Now if these riots were political then this would be bad... but it was just criminality and opportunism to steal, vandalise and fight. This is a deterrant for not only those who have been sentenced but also for any other idiots who think its a fun idea to destroy shops and ultimately peoples livelihoods. I don't agree with the government a lot of the time, but I'm glad they are coming down hard on this idiotic behaviour.
I'm quite glad the rioters are getting caught and slammed with heavy fines or sentances.



These guys get 4 years for just typing stuff on facebook, that others could make there own minds up about, in noway forcing anyone to do anything.


They didn't just 'write stuff' though did they... they tried to get people to go riot. You have to understand that people are stupid and if they see something like that on facebook then they'll join in. The power of the social media is incredible... a few guys inciting a riot could turn into a country wide riot within hours. You have to come down hard on this and show people that it isn't acceptable to be doing this sort of thing.




These lads got 4 years cos the powers that be are corrupt. Any hint of organised opposition by the lower classes always gets stamped on. Whether its just or no.


It wasn't just lower classes that were rioting... And they weren't organising an opposition to the government at all... these riots weren't political... they just wanted the opportunity to steal a HDTV so they could make some money on Ebay................
If they were organising a political march against government then this sentence would be terrible... but they weren't... they were organising a mass looting that would destroy peoples livelihoods.




It's about how the establishment sent these two down for longer than if they were sex cases. How the hell can society justify that?


I can understand this complaint about these guys going down for longer than rapists... but (and I'll probably get totally flamed for this)...
Rapists and sex offenders usually only affect a handful of people (and yes I know its awful but please hear me out). These guys who were trying to organise riots could have had huge repercussions on hundreds of people. Shops would be burnt to the ground meaning shop owners would be destroyed financially, fights could break out that could end up in murder (the likes we have already seen this past week), peoples houses could be burnt to a crispt endangering those inside (again we've seen this happen already). They had the power to potentially ruin hundreds of people with riots and looting which may have lead to murders and muggings.
Its a harsh reality but these people are more dangerous than one guy raping one girl... sorry but it is. They aren't directly anywhere near as bad, but it is the things they can cause which makes them dangerous.
You can swear and rage at me all you like but it doesn't change the fact that these riots could have killed hundreds of people.
edit on 17-8-2011 by Noviz because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join