English duo get 4 years for inciting riots on facebook

reply to post by StevenDye


I don't think it possible to extract one from the other.. if the system is seen as unjust we risk reinforcing the anger that is present in society rather than dissipating it, and in the end that will create more problems than it resolves.

ETA: To be clear.. I expect the Government to neutralise the problems not make them worse! which is what I feel they have done.. this was easy to predict, heck even Labour did that with their predicted "Summer of Rage" (tm NuLabour) and I even made a thread at the time stating that it it would happen not happen then but would happen now.

Just because they didn't manage to get a riot going doesn't make their crime 'less bad.' They were inciting looting and rioting which could have potentially led to deaths - be it murder or accidental death. They are just as bad as someone who tried to get people to riot and was successful.
It's like saying if a guy goes to try murder someone, yet doesn't quite pull it off in the end he should be let off......

Originally posted by thoughtsfull
Our system of justice should hand down exactly that. It should be free of political bias and should hand out the same level of justice for everyone and on this our systems fails.. our system fails miserably and this only goes to prove how broken the system is and how easy it is for the system to be manipulated by those with power.

I would take issue with you. The judicial system in the UK is independent and free from political interference and bias. You just need to look at the fact that politicians of all colours are routinely complaining about sentencing, judgement and legal interpretations.

The separation of the judiciary from the executive is established and works. Prove me wrong.

In the context of the mass criminality and disorder. Are the judges being overly harsh because the politicians are bleating, or are they merely delivering tough sentences because of the seriousness of the circumstances? I think the latter. I bet that when some of these sentences come up for appeal the original tariff will be upheld.

Evidence and history shows us that the judges ignore political bleating.

Regards

reply to post by thoughtsfull


Well, I agree with you in a sense. What I meant was, that lets forget the rest of the justice system for a second and look solely at this case alone. When doing that, I think it is a fair sentence.

Though as you say, it's hard to look at it that way, and the majority of the population wont and will simply compare it to other sentences, in which case it looks terrible and raises many questions.

In an ideal world I would take my view of it, but yes you are right, this will cause mroe anger.

Originally posted by JennaDarling
Everybody in the UK should start EVENTS on facebook with the same topics as they did

What are they going to do? Jail EVERYBODY? That would help their appeal, i mean if everybody is doing it, wtf?

Make a mockery out of their system,, turn their "intel machine" into nothing but NOISE.

Careful, you could go to prison for making a statement like that! You're essentially on a social media site, calling for the inciting of disorder that may or may never come to any sort of resulting disorder. Nevertheless you have owned these statements and I'm considering reporting you for making them.

reply to post by paraphi


Yes, but suppose there were mass protests. Now, suppose within those mass protests, there are a small minority of trouble-starters and/or agents provocateurs. Could this decision be used as precedent to clamp down on a protester on twitter or facebook encouraging more people onto the streets to join the protests that are largely peaceful, but spattered with some disorder here and there by the usual suspects?

If I'm not mistaken, something like this did occur in Minnesota back during the 2008 RNC and the Toronto G20 summit last year. In effect, organization of protests were targeted under the guise that the protests could lead to disorder - usually provoked.

reply to post by StevenDye


I too would prefer to live in a world where justice is wrought and where we all safe to walk our streets, my concern is that by creating an injustice (even if it is only perceived) they are only going to make things worse not better.

I really do not know where this country is heading and it bothers me a lot, I have a teenage son and I worry about his safety and welfare.

Sutcliffe-Keenan, the judge said, "caused a very real panic" and "put a very considerable strain on police resources in Warrington". He praised Cheshire police for their "modern and clever policy" of infiltrating the website.

So, your facebook page is not private then, even when you set it to private the police are able to get in and apparently without a warrant? I mean, if that is the case with the UK, I can only imagine over here with our nearly 10 years strong era of warrant-less wire-tapping.

I'm still curious what it was that they said, I've yet to read it verbatim. All I'm able to find is pages and pages of stories covering this event with the usual suspects and their usual bents of "hang them" or "400 hundred years would have been better in some 3rd world prison".

I'll admit that my knee-jerk reaction was to see the pitied side of things. And, if upon reading what they wrote, I may be more inclined to feel less sorry for them - though I still think four years may be too stiff. Nevertheless, my real point is this: Isn't it incredible that a story can be put out, you can't read what the exact language they used, but yet the in the world-wide cyber comments of public opinion, these are vile thugs. It's really interesting to me how quickly someone you've never heard of can become the latest flavor of hate while knowing practically nothing about their circumstances other than a few second-hand accounts and quotes and five or six paragraphs of commentary.

It's actually a little scary, like a person could be instantly transformed from Joe Schmoe to a pariah worthy of public flogging in the time it takes to "login and post".

reply to post by Sphota

Yes, but suppose there were mass protests. Now, suppose within those mass protests, there are a small minority of trouble-starters and/or agents provocateurs. Could this decision be used as precedent to clamp down on a protester on twitter or facebook encouraging more people onto the streets to join the protests that are largely peaceful, but spattered with some disorder here and there by the usual suspects?

No, inciting riot has a strict legal definition.

reply to post by Sphota


Well, I think violent protest should be robustly stopped. I am sick and tired of the obligatory smashing up of MacDonald’s or defacing public monuments etc... The violence and mayhem proves nothing and merely diverts the issues AWAY from any legitimate grievance. In the riots, can you show me any coherent political aim. The aim was to smash and grab.

In our society (i.e. the UK) the social norm is for peaceful protest. You will be surprised what peaceful demonstration achieves. Firstly, the message remains untainted and secondly the public who form policy through their vote and action are not alienated. Britain is not Syria or China and the politicians and policy makers are usually sensitive to public opinion and mood. You may think I am wrong, but prove that I am wrong.

Regards

Let them incite riots.

I got something waiting for them if they want to come on over my way and threaten me. I'll be turning these worthless rioters heads into a fine red mist if they try breaking into my place.

reply to post by paraphi


I don't think you are wrong and agree with everything you just said.

I'm not saying rioting is useful, but it's also not useless. The problem with rioting is that it's often difficult to decide when it's appropriate, and honestly it's a subjective process: unless you are in their shoes, you really cannot say it wasn't appropriate.

Perhaps only in the most extreme forms of oppression is rioting useful. Rioting is just another form of "battle", there really is no difference. There is a faction that has grievances and sees violence and wanton destruction as their only means to an end.

Revolution is thrown around a lot in the US, referring back to the actual Revolution in either a literal tone (real violence) or a metaphorical tone (accomplishing revolutionary change). The word is not inherently violent, but from our historical perspective, it has that extended meaning. If people were to be up in arms about the system here in the US much as they were back then, there would always be a segment of society that will reject any apology or excuse for the violence - this is especially true of those who do not have grievances because they do not suffer from the system (or at least do not see how their suffering is do to the system).

Paulo Freire deserves a mention here. He is a Brazilian Marxist thinker and Theologian who was politically active there during the military dictatorship. He worked with the poor, landless masses, especially on themes of educational reform. He has a book titled in English Pedagogy of the Oppressed (it's online somewhere, I downloaded the Portuguese version, but I know the English one is there if you dig) that basically details the binary relationship between oppressors and oppressed and the tenuous space that each group occupies. He notes that the oppressed, through violence, are just as easily transformed into the oppressors when given the chance. Likewise, the oppressors are dehumanized just as easily through their oppression.

However, I'm less interested in the issue regarding the riots themselves, which I'm sure would and could be quite a long, drawn out discussion. My real interest, as I showed in my previous post, was regarding the actual precedent set by the judge and especially the privacy involved in social media. I think I've made a valid point above mentioning the use of violence by sectors (or agents provocateurs) within protest spaces, that inevitably leads to reactionary policies by the State.

Nowadays, the pre-emption seems to have surpassed reaction.

reply to post by paraphi


I was going to edit my above comment, but then I realized what I wanted to say was a little longer so to make it more clear and concise, I've made a new post:

I wanted to mention - in line with your comment about legitimate peaceful protesting - that many people, especially youth, are bombarded with conflicting social narratives mostly generated by a media full of messages intended to attract profit en lieu of informing the public. So much so that this segment of society does not understand their rights correctly. I know many people my age (early 30s) and younger who are completely oblivious to the talking point junk served up on the three networks that riles up the partisans, let alone any real, cited, factual analysis for the problems that our society faces as addressed by the alternative media.

Where does this leave you? Facing a mass of people who don't even have ground to stand on when it comes to any social, economic or political issue. How do you, en masse, get that group to, simultaneously, understand the legitimate grievances, understand their rights vis-a-vis those grievances, and see how they can affect change?

You cannot. That sort of task would be monumentous in the instants running up to the explosion of a societal powder-keg of rioting. That sort of educational process needs to be addressed prior to the upwelling of angst and anger. It needs to be done now. If you really feel that peaceful protest can work - and I agree - you need to start facilitating its resurgence.

I can't speak for the UK as I've only been there once (to London for three days), but I can speak for the US and it definitely needs to be addressed soon, before we have such rioting, that will probably be worse - partly due to much older, more entrenched racial strife, partly to a larger population, and partly due to an even less educated mainstream population than the UK probably boasts.

Originally posted by paraphi
In our society (i.e. the UK) the social norm is for peaceful protest. You will be surprised what peaceful demonstration achieves. Firstly, the message remains untainted and secondly the public who form policy through their vote and action are not alienated. Britain is not Syria or China and the politicians and policy makers are usually sensitive to public opinion and mood. You may think I am wrong, but prove that I am wrong.

Regards

Yes, I am constantly surprised by what peaceful demonstration achieves. Absolutely NOTHING. I challenge you to give me one single example of peaceful demonstration resulting in change in the UK.

Source: news.bbc.co.uk...

Hundreds of thousands of people have taken to the streets of London to voice their opposition to military action against Iraq. Police said it was the UK's biggest ever demonstration with at least 750,000 taking part, although organisers put the figure closer to two million.

This was a peaceful demonstration but did it do anything to sway the politicians? Did it hell.

How about this then: en.wikipedia.org...

Source: www.bbc.co.uk...

Police have dispersed the final student demonstrators in central London after a day of protests against higher tuition fees and university cuts.

Largely peaceful protest. Result? Bugger all.

Then we get to this:

en.wikipedia.org...

Source: news.bbc.co.uk...

An anti-poll tax rally in central London has erupted into the worst riots seen in the city for a century.

Result? The "Poll Tax" was abolished and Maggie Thatcher was forced to step down as PM.

Are we seeing a pattern here?

justice? no such thing exists any more.

just on the news i heard a former soldier's just got 18 months for stabbing a 10 year old boy.

18 months for stabbing a child.

4 years for being dissatisfied with this country.

how twisted is that. it's so sickening the level of injustice around the world.