Re: Students Rioting in London.
 

no i'm implying that people who go to the university of life would not fall for a trick like that

Re: Students Rioting in London.
 

I don't believe in making an example of anyone, simply because in my view it's morally abominable (mkay?) to hold someone responsible for the action of strangers.

Re: Students Rioting in London.
 

eh?

Re: Students Rioting in London.
 

I concede that Charlie's behaviour throughout the day suggests there was more than a moment of insanity (I think he had a scarf not a mask btw), but I still think that the public isn't safer with him behind bars. As such, I seriously wonder what (apart from setting an example) purpose there is to putting him behind bars. I'm not saying he shouldn't be punished. It's just that I think there are more appropriate sentences.

Either way, there is also the case of Francis Fernie I linked to earlier. Twelve months for throwing two sticks at the police, with no evidence of intentionally setting out to cause mayhem. I feel to see the point of him going to prison. It's not going to make him a better man. Community service might.

Re: Students Rioting in London.
 

Is this pseudo-intellectual nonsense supposed to mean you think that Gilmour was not responsible for the things he was accused of?

Incidentally, the word you want is 'reprehensible'. 'irreprehensible', if it even exists as a word, would mean the exact opposite. ;)

Re: Students Rioting in London.
 

University of life? You mean people who never ventured into higher education?
We'll trade then, you keep your street saviness and we keep our education. Deal? :D

Re: Students Rioting in London.
 

The public is safer not because Gilmour is off the streets, but because a spell behind bars is a very, very big deal to most of the people who might be tempted to behave as he did in future protests. The fact that you can get a significant prison sentence for it will make it less likely that some of those people will try to tear up our capital city the next time they wish to express a grievance.

Re: Students Rioting in London.
 

Do you think the same applies to Francis Fernie?

And how does that compare to the violence we see in city centres on the weekend, perpetrated by people who are (to my mind) far more likely to re-offend, because it's just part of a night out?

Re: Students Rioting in London.
 

Its not pseudo-intellectual, its simple truth. The fact that you cannot see it, actually says more about you than I ever could.

You think it's fair to send a kid to prison for 16 months for chucking a bin at a stationary vehicle? I find that utterly shocking, how anyone could be living in our society, apparently living among us and yet can demonstrate such an appaulingly cruel lack of judgement is simply beyond me.

We have rapists and paedos getting less than 16 months, and you think it's fair to completely ruin this kids life because he got caught up in the moment? If you head out into just about any city centre near pub closing time, you're bound to see worse than a bin getting chucked.
The judge decided to make an example of Mr. Gilmour, to send a clear message to others, not because of what he did.

And then there's that other chap who keeps bantering on that he would've given the kid 5 years. You people are completely out of your minds.
Were you lot ever young? Have you never gone a bit mad and did something you later regretted? I bet you have, just as well for you there wasn't a camera there to record it, eh? Or is it one rule for yourselves, and another for students I wonder?


"Judge not, lest ye be not judged."
The measure of your judgement upon others will be the measure by which you will one day be judged.

And if not, then it bl**dy well should be !

Re: Students Rioting in London.
 

yes we where ,and yes we did ,but then we grew up .
The problem with the likes of Gilmore is they think they have the right to cause mayhem and disorder whenever something is proposed that they don't like and haven't got the brains to think it through ...like higher educated people are supposed to do .

Re: Students Rioting in London.
 

From your previous post's quote Crim/rioter/protester - benefit of the doubt
Plod - no chance

Nice to see consistency.....:erm:

---------- Post added at 20:43 ---------- Previous post was at 20:39 ----------

Here's another one for you.

"If you can't do the time, don't do the crime".

I can honestly say that I have never climbed a war memorial (then pretended I didn't know what it was), or thrown a bin at a passing car, or smashed a shop window, etc etc....

And our Charlie "went a bit mad" quite a few times, didn't he?

---------- Post added at 20:46 ---------- Previous post was at 20:43 ----------

I think you meant "We'll trade, then - you keep your street savviness and we'll keep our education (sic). Deal?".;)

---------- Post added at 20:47 ---------- Previous post was at 20:46 ----------

Oh, the irony......:D

Re: Students Rioting in London.
 

but Hugh it was drugs wat 'e tuk that made him do those fings an 'is dad's famus so it's alright innit

Re: Students Rioting in London.
 

Was it the drugs that accounted for his claimed ignorance with respect to the Cenotaph I wonder? I mean it can't have been his education and I don't suppose for a minute that he'd lie about something like that under oath in court just to get off. That'd be a bit naughty wouldn't it...

Re: Students Rioting in London.
 

He wasn't actually sentenced for that. Just for throwing the bin and kicking a Top Shop window. Apparently, there's no crime of 'violent swinging', yet.

Re: Students Rioting in London.
 

There is a crime of lying under oath. ;)

I wonder if he realised the significance of the other activities pictured in the following report:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...nt-father.html

Re: Students Rioting in London.
 

Neither have I. I've done other things however, but nothing quite like that. I think his defense was wrong to have tried to have blamed drugs, and trying to blame LSD was a rather pathetic attempt at getting off the hook.
I've seen a video somewhere on youtube of Mr. Gilmour reading poetry to the police, and I can say that he would've seriously annoyed me when I was at uni. He's not my sort of company, and if I had to be within close proximity to him for any length of time I think he'd really get on my nerves.
However, I still don't think he's any sort of threat to the public.
Community service was invented for the Charlie Gilmours of our society.
I've read a lot of posts by people focusing on his privileged background, taking glee in the fact that he's been jailed. That is something I disagree with, for he didn't choose his family and upbringing.
Also, for the most part the well-to-do in our society have just sat back and ignored the fees increase because it's not a problem for them.
I think we need more involvement from people from all (including privileged) backgrounds, as all to often the "I'm alright jack" brigade just let everyone else get on with it.

Listening to London's LBC this morning, Steve Allen said he'd have given Charlie Gilmour 10 years for his rampage. However, even the esteemed presenter didn't even seem to realise that the sentence wasn't because of the Cenotaph incident. Its a welcome reminder that just because someone is a gifted speaker and displays a colourful use of the English language, doen'st mean they actually have a clue. If everyone could just understand this, then most of our politicians would soon be in trouble.

---------- Post added at 08:16 ---------- Previous post was at 07:54 ----------

Do you think a 16 month stay in prison when you were 21 would've been a good thing? I'd even go so far as to say that if you came from a famous family and after you were caught, then that would've been embarrassment enough for you to have learnt your lesson. Never mind jail time.

They're students, not graduates. There is a big difference there.
I just find it rather bizaare that people focus on the juvenile actions of our younger generation, rather than the masses of violent football yobs, and drunken weekend hooligans.
I think you've got your priorites the wrong way around mate.

I think English people in general have their priorities in a twist.
For instance, just recently it was reported that English students studying in Scotland would have to pay £9,000 per year. English people were then calling for independance from Scotland, to boycott Scotland, and saying things like "Yes we Scots are gonna keep that English taxpayers money for ourselves", etc etc.
I felt quite sick to be quite honest, at just how stupid people are in this country.

Its obvious really, Scotland is a small country of circa 5 million, whereas England has over 50 million. Scotland has had to put money aside to pay for the tuition of it's own students, and this has involved cuts. If English students weren't blocked from free tuition in Scotland, its easily likely that most Scottish students simply wouldn't be able to find a place, as they'd be mostly taken by English students.

Now here is the big question, what's the wager that those in England calling shame on Scotland for not paying the tuition for English students, are the very same people who chastised the students in London when they dared to protest against the planned tuition fees increase?
No wonder this country is in such a mess.

Re: Students Rioting in London.
 

Most people I know weren't against the students protesting - they were very much against the entirely reckless and unacceptable way in which some of them, like Gilmour, chose to go about it.

Since you're interested in wagers, I'd wager that what Steve Allen had to say about this and indeed most other matters during his 'tabloid' style radio show isn't a true reflection of what the majority of his listeners really believe, let alone the majority of the population as a whole.

Re: Students Rioting in London.
 

So, the gangs of drunken yobs we see rampaging through the city streets all get sixteen months? The recent EDL marches where the thugs have been arrested, what sentences did they get? Both of those examples are "acting in a group for a common illegal goal."

---------- Post added at 11:17 ---------- Previous post was at 11:09 ----------

Mask and gloves? It was a scarf and woolly gloves, it was November, it was cold. I am pretty sure that almost everyone went out that day with a scarf and gloves; hardly damning, is it. Reading poetry, is not exactly what many people would call "intent on hell raising."

Re: Students Rioting in London.
 

I take it you didn't see the pictures of him tossing a rock up and down whilst wearing latex gloves or apparently trying to set fire to a pile of newspapers in the doorway of the Supreme Court then? No doubt he'd lost his little woolly gloves and the rock and the fire were simply intended to keep him warm... :rolleyes:

Re: Students Rioting in London.
 

If they end up charged with violent disorder I would imagine they would get very similar sentences.
Gilmour was involved in trouble at different points over several hours, it wasn't the 'moment of madness' that defence lawyers trot out about Saturday night hooligans.

Luckily enough one member of the forum has already posted a pic of young Chazza taken during the protests.

http://www.cableforum.co.uk/board/35...-post1453.html

Funny looking wooly gloves those...

I dunno, maybe he had a full first aid kit in his big, black student gwant coat and they just happened to slip onto his hands.

---------- Post added at 12:19 ---------- Previous post was at 12:14 ----------

For the avoidance of doubt.

Wooly gloves

[img]Download Failed (1)[/img]

NOT wooly gloves.

[img]Download Failed (1)[/img]

Re: Students Rioting in London.
 

:rofl:

Re: Students Rioting in London.
 

quite obviously the rock was to start fire ,everyone knows that if you throw a rock through a window it will create fire to warm you on a cold november day :rolleyes:

Re: Students Rioting in London.
 

Charlie Gilmour raising hell on the streets of London...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bFz33oWVTDE
(note the gloves)

Re: Students Rioting in London.
 

the look on those coppers faces says it all :bsmack:

Re: Students Rioting in London.
 

love the emoticon :)
Though the copper had to make do with grabbing his stick, I'm sure he'd have done more had the camera not been there !

---------- Post added at 19:32 ---------- Previous post was at 19:23 ----------

Derek, I spent 5 years living in Paisley during my uni spell. You can't tell me that's hooliganism by local standards there.
I seem to remember its not even considered violence unless someone gets a Glasgae kiss or a bottle in the face. You can fool these southern folks, but you canny fool me :D

Re: Students Rioting in London.
 

Actually, I think his plan might have been to light the fire simply to heat up the rock to carry around as a handwarmer for a long afternoon protesting.... :D

Just waiting for Flyboy to show up claiming that he wasn't trying to light a fire, he was just doing his civic duty by arranging some litter in a nice little pile.... :D

Re: Students Rioting in London.
 

:D Didn't spot those.

Re: Students Rioting in London.
 

What a surprise...

Re: Students Rioting in London.
 

:LOL:

Re: Students Rioting in London.
 

Clearly. Good job the authorities did eh?

As a keen supporter of the police, presumably you'll be wanting to correct your earlier views, modify your rather selective judgement of Gilmour's behaviour on the day accordingly and praise the police for their efforts in securing his prosecution? :rolleyes:

Re: Students Rioting in London.
 

When hell freezes over, I'm guessing.

Re: Students Rioting in London.
 

5 years in Paisley? You have my sympathy... :erm:

Anyway yes sometimes Paisley, just like any other town or city, can get a bit boisterous but I'd have to say he'd be arrested for a breach if he tried some of the stuff he did in London. If he was in a group of 8 or more it would be a charge of mobbing and rioting (roughly similar to the English violent disorder charge)

Re: Students Rioting in London.
 

Nah, that'd imply some minute degree of impartiality.....

Re: Students Rioting in London.
 

Yes. It says I think you are wrong. I am quite happy with that.

And a game of football is just 22 men chasing a plastic sphere round a field.

Criticising - or defending - something by attempting to strip it of its meaning and context is an extremely poor way of making a point. I think I'll let the ample postings of what Gilmour actually did, and the context in which he did them, stand as refutation of this.

All this shows is a bizarre and rather extreme inability to understand, or tolerate, views that happen to differ from yours.

If you believe the penalties for sex crimes to be too lenient, surely the appropriate course of action is to campaign in that area? It has nothing to do with the penalties imposed for offences related to rioting.

Again, what Gilmour *actually* did has been exhaustively catalogued in this thread - including the part where he went equipped for mischief with a mask and rubber gloves, the better to avoid detection by CCTV or fingerprints. Getting "caught up in the moment" might be how you need to see it in order for events to suit your world view, but the facts say the way you see it is nothing more than self-delusion.

. No, it was for what he did, plus a consideration for the deterrent effect. A long-standing and perfectly normal part of our criminal justice system. If Gilmour didn't want to be made an example of, then he was perfectly at liberty to choose not to go a-rioting.

Yes. I and some mates once dressed up as CI5 and went screaming into a deserted station car park (due to a rail strike) in an Austin Mini. We jumped out with water pistols and ran over e footbridge while another of us videoed it, so we could make our own retro cop show. We were spotted, reported to the police and an ARU was deployed. Thankfully the local plod caught us before the heavy mob did. We got an *extremely* loud talking to, had our water pistols smashed with a night stick and then were made to clean up the bits. The copper who did this probably broke every human rights rule in tbe book, but it's a lesson none of us ever forgot.

Gilmour is also receiving a lesson - one appropriate to the context of his actions.

I will be very surprised if you have the first idea what these words mean and how they should be applied.

Re: Students Rioting in London.
 

You often think you're right, and try to pin others' views as being merely their own rather than representative of a balanced view point. Haters will be haters, and all that. Anyone who shouts so loud about a student seen acting out of order during a violent protest but yet does little or nothing in regards to the real issues in society is a hypocrit, imo.
The lame excuse I keep hearing - that handing out stiff justice is justified here because we have to start somewhere, and just because other crimes are sentenced less severely doesn't mean this sentence isn't just, is nothing but a lame excuse used to justify your own grievances against students.

I'm sure you're not such a do-gooder, and in your earlier years if a camera had been there in the right place, there would no doubt be other Chris's out there shouting for your blood too. Thats the beauty of the mob, they have no real loyalties. Given time, they turn on each other.

It's not a matter of opinion either. Some people are simply unable to intellectually analyse relatively complex problems without a personal bias affecting their conclusions. I find it rather contradictory when people try and use their literary mind and thesaurus to try and portray themselves as intellectual to their forum peers, whilst at the same time demonstrating a complete inabitlity to think objectively on even slightly emotional issues.
Substance > words.

If you believe the laws and sentencing guidelines are too lenient, then of all people why start with Charlie Gilmour? I recommend a visit to A&E on a fri/sat night, then you'll see the product of real violence - rather than Cenotaph swinging/bin chucking/rock catching/latex glove wielding gore-fest shock horror you've become acclimatised to in the Daily Mail.

I suggest you take a step back from the tabloids, take off the rose tinted glasses and join the real world. ;)

This sort of activity is only *shocking* because you and others have had the convenient opportunity to sit down and analyse it, and in doing so you've lost sight of the broader picture. Welcome to 21st century Britain, where city centres become warzones and justice is rarely served. Every weekend people get glassed in the face, randomly attacked, beaten and mostly any sentences handed out are far less than 16 months in prison.

We should make an example of them, not some pampered naughty rich kid showing off to the cameras during a protest.

The last time I checked, wearing rubber gloves wasn't a crime. In fact, it appears to me that the rubber gloves were for show. Noone is taking finger prints of all the rubbish thrown, have you seen figerprints taken from a brick before? Or would they be needed when lighting some bits of paper on fire with a lighter which apparently didn't work?

Did it not ever occur to you that ordinary gloves would prevent finger prints just as well as latex ones, and even keep you warm during the winter protest?
And before some pseudo-intellectual chimes in with their "knowledge", let it be known that skin cells could be extracted from disused latex gloves just as easily as fibres could be identified from the gloves and traced to the owner.

More than likely it was all a show for the cameras. I've known people like that, they wish to come across all hardcore, but they're really just pampered kids looking for some purpose in life. Fair enough, but anyone who thinks 16 months in prison is suitable in this case, all considering, really needs to have a rethink or their head examined. Leave the harsh sentences for the real thugs in our society.

If you think it's time for the law to make an example of someone, how about someone who actually hurt someone? Not the lame suggestion that it's justified because Charlie may have hurt someone when he chucked the bin...If anyone here actually thinks that's justification for the sentenced handed out, then that's not just a differing opinion - but rather a moronic one too.

Wow, more delusions.

I think if Gilmour knew this would have happened, he wouldn't have done this - and I think he has reason to be a bit shocked. If you got out more, you'd see it too.


When those words are directed a baying mob lusting for blood, I think they're being applied as originally intended.
Do you consider yourself a true Christian?
If so, then you must be the first who's never heard of forgiveness? Of perhaps you have heard it but you think it only applies to other people in relation to your own youthful indiscretions?

---------- Post added at 12:13 ---------- Previous post was at 12:02 ----------

Just out of curiosity Chris, if you could have sentenced those who attended the student protests, how many do you think were deserving of 16 or more months in prison?

Re: Students Rioting in London.
 

Sparks, congratulations on posting so much self-serving rhetoric without actually addressing any of the relevant facts. Actually, scratch that, you attempted to address the relevant fact of the rubber gloves, but as you merely managed to dress up wishful thinking as intellectual discussion there's little to be achieved in continuing that line of discussion. As I said earlier, your view of events that day requires you to see things in a certain light and inconvenient truths aren't about to sway you.

As regards your Bible quotes, yes I do consider myself to be a 'true' Christian, though I wonder what you think that means. And as a 'true' Christian who has delivered sermons on those very words, on more than a few occasions, I can assure you that their intent was not to undermine civil authority and their context was not a baying mob.

Re: Students Rioting in London.
 

Nowhere in that quote did I say it meant to undermine civil authority, nor do I believe it to.

Re: Students Rioting in London.
 

And the baying mob?

Re: Students Rioting in London.
 

[QUOTE=Sparkle;35278250]You often think ........snip QUOTE]

You seem to have totally ignored the fact that Gilmore and others like him set out that day ..and the following riots ,to deliberately smash things/set fires/throw rocks ect ,ect .It was deliberate ,it was planned with forthought and malice ,they where most definately not caught up in the moment

Re: Students Rioting in London.
 

[QUOTE=martyh;35278388]I thought he was just young and confused and was only doing the sort of thing you and I did when we were young with an axe to grind... ;)

Anyway, Flyboy's been conspicuous by his absence. Odd how he makes such bold statements of 'fact' when it suits his agenda then scuttles off when he's been shown to be talking out of his hat yet again..... :rolleyes:

Re: Students Rioting in London.
 

[QUOTE=Osem;35278508]Indeed .I find it funny how some people will condemn thugs and louts in certain situations but when it suits their own agendas the same thugs and louts are righteous citizens fighting for a just cause .Is there any difference between students smashing windows and setting fires and football fans doing the same ?

Re: Students Rioting in London.
 

[QUOTE=martyh;35278517]Yes of course. It's a well known fact that all football fans are Nazi sympathising, knuckly dragging thugs and all students are naive choirboys in need of woolly mittens to keep their little hands warm..... :D

Re: Students Rioting in London.
 

Latest re Jody McIntyre/wheelchair/rozzer imbroglio - it will be interesting to see the actual Police Complaints watchdog statement (as "wins police complaint" is in apostrophes, which usually means it is an interpretation of what someone said.....).

Re: Students Rioting in London.
 

Oh well hopefully the next time the serial protestor and riot inciter decides he can't be bothered to walk up several flights of stairs and gets to the front of a bunch of missile throwing protestors he gets "Alfie'd"

Really the Police can't win. If he got injured in the protests they would have failed in their duty of care to him. He refused to move himself so was moved with the minimum of fuss and reunited with his chair and brother a few minutes later thats too much force being used. :(

Re: Students Rioting in London.
 

Quite agree. Makes you wonder what planet the people who come to these judgements are on and whether they have any concept of the problems the police are facing in situations like these.

It'll be interesting to see what the judgement actually states and if there's any mention of this idiot's behaviour at the time and to what extent it contributed to what happened?

Re: Students Rioting in London.
 

I think we need to wait until this report is published before passing comment ... at the moment all we have is Team Jody's spin on an unpublished tribunal report. The lawyer says Macintyre is 'vindicated' - well frankly, that could mean anything, especially given Macintyre's scarcely-concealed assumption that every copper is up to no good.

---------- Post added at 15:13 ---------- Previous post was at 15:05 ----------

Just had a look at his grotty little blogâ„¢ ... his analysis of the war in Libya is jaw-dropping in its naivety. The world must seem such a simple, black and white place from the vantage point of his wheels.

Apparently, every Westerner in any sort of uniform is bound to be oppressing somebody, whether at home or abroad. Especially Arabs.

Re: Students Rioting in London.
 

IPCC press release:

Re: Students Rioting in London.
 

Someone correct me if I'm wrong here, but I thought the essence of Macintyre's complaint was that he was removed from his wheelchair ... the very thing that the IPCC has now ruled to have been reasonable under the circumstances?

Still, I don't expect we can expect Team Jody to stand up and trumpet their 'partial vindication' can we?

Re: Students Rioting in London.
 

l think there,s no chance of that.

Re: Students Rioting in London.
 

Well the independant dumped him because of his comments during the Tottenham riots ,so at least one newspaper has some sense

https://www.cableforum.co.uk/images/...8/1.jpg?cda6c1

http://politicalscrapbook.net/2011/0...e-independent/

sailing awfully close to wind on inciting a riot if you ask me

Re: Students Rioting in London.
 

People have been jailed for less than that over the past couple of weeks. I would love to hear about it the day he gets a knock on his door and invited to help the 'feds' with their enquiries.

---------- Post added at 16:02 ---------- Previous post was at 15:59 ----------

Love the way that blogger called out the two comments agreeing with each other via the same IP. :D

Re: Students Rioting in London.
 

Well that just about sums this misguided idiot up doesn't it. I wonder how he'd feel if those he was trying to 'inspire' to 'rise up' decided to run amok down his street and loot, then set fire to his home. Would he consider that legitimate action I wonder? I don't suppose he'd bother calling the police either would he... :rolleyes:

Re: Students Rioting in London.
 

Wonder if he'd complain about the firemen removing him from his wheelchair then?

Re: Students Rioting in London.
 

The history student who doesn't know what the Cenotaph is has been released from prison after 4 months.

4 months into a 16 month sentence :rolleyes:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-15734986

Re: Students Rioting in London.
 

Just goes to prove what british justice is all about, he was in a cushy prison of wayland.

Re: Students Rioting in London.
 

25% of his sentence - about the same as our MP friends. Not sure who's worst to be honest but at least he can claim to be a naive youth.

Re: Students Rioting in London.
 

l remember a certain politician coming out with the remarks "tough on crime tough on the causes of crime" well if this gentlemen is anything to go by then the remarks have to be weak on crimimals and even weaker on the victims of criminals.

Re: Students Rioting in London.
 

No it was a "Blair" thing and it went " Weak on criminals hard on the victims of crime " :)

He wife made sure of that by quoting the HRA when ever she could

I see no difference now or in the future as long as the HRA can be used so easily by crafty lawyers.