Students Rioting in London. - Page 99

danielf · 16-07-2011, 22:21

Quote:

Originally Posted by Derek

It sends a message. You are allowed to protest but step out of line and we will hammer you.

Yes, it will do that, but is still seems an utterly disproportionate sentence to me. Hell, people get up to worse than what he did on weekend nights in city centres up and down the country (with actual violence against persons), and they get nowhere near the sentence he did.

Apart from sending out a message, there is no purpose served by sending him to prison, let alone for 16 months. This type of offence is what community service was invented for. Letting the moron help out and speak to injured soldiers a day a week for a year would be a far more effective way of drilling some sense in to him.

It's stupid kneejerk sentencing, and I hope the appeal judge will have more sense and hand out a more appropriate sentence.

**Hugh** · 16-07-2011, 22:56

Quote:

Originally Posted by Damien

He stands a good chance of being successful on appeal because the orignal sentence is not proportional to his crime. I struggle to see what he got that for, looking at what he was charged with there doesn't seem to be anything that warrants a spell in prison. Let alone 16 months.

Actually, for violent disorder you can get up to five years.

staggie · 17-07-2011, 07:26

chuck the book the book at this boy for what he did

Sirius · 17-07-2011, 07:33

Quote:

Originally Posted by staggie

chuck the book the book at this boy for what he did

They did

Derek · 17-07-2011, 14:05

Quote:

Originally Posted by danielf

It's stupid kneejerk sentencing, and I hope the appeal judge will have more sense and hand out a more appropriate sentence.

Nope the sentencing is entirely within the guidlines.

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/s...lent_disorder/

Lets have a look at the aggravating factors.

Busy public place. = Yep
Large group, = Yep
people put in fear. = Maybe
Vulnerable victims, = OK I'll give him this, he's lucky the Royal protection officer didn't shoot him
weapons, = Yep
fighting between rival groups. = Nope
Planning/organisation. = Hmmm, he just happened to have surgical gloves and face covering to hand

Racially/religiously aggravated. = Nope
Injuries/damage. = Luckily no
Violence towards Police. = Yep
Disguises. = See above, face covering and rubber gloves.

Seeing he could have got up to 5 years the 16 months seems fair. He was involved in looting Top Shop and tried to set fire to a building during his drink and drug fuelled binge.
Impulsive action. Provocation.

denphone · 17-07-2011, 14:12

Quote:

Originally Posted by danielf

Yes, it will do that, but is still seems an utterly disproportionate sentence to me. Hell, people get up to worse than what he did on weekend nights in city centres up and down the country (with actual violence against persons), and they get nowhere near the sentence he did.

Apart from sending out a message, there is no purpose served by sending him to prison, let alone for 16 months. This type of offence is what community service was invented for. Letting the moron help out and speak to injured soldiers a day a week for a year would be a far more effective way of drilling some sense in to him.

It's stupid kneejerk sentencing, and I hope the appeal judge will have more sense and hand out a more appropriate sentence.

l have to disagree with you because l would have given him 5 years at least because it would have set a precedent so others would not follow his example and do this in future protests.

danielf · 17-07-2011, 14:45

Quote:

Originally Posted by Derek

Nope the sentencing is entirely within the guidlines.

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/s...lent_disorder/

Lets have a look at the aggravating factors.

Busy public place. = Yep
Large group, = Yep
people put in fear. = Maybe
Vulnerable victims, = OK I'll give him this, he's lucky the Royal protection officer didn't shoot him
weapons, = Yep
fighting between rival groups. = Nope
Planning/organisation. = Hmmm, he just happened to have surgical gloves and face covering to hand

Racially/religiously aggravated. = Nope
Injuries/damage. = Luckily no
Violence towards Police. = Yep
Disguises. = See above, face covering and rubber gloves.

Seeing he could have got up to 5 years the 16 months seems fair. He was involved in looting Top Shop and tried to set fire to a building during his drink and drug fuelled binge.
Impulsive action. Provocation.

Well, according to the Independent, the actual charges were throwing a bin at the car carrying royal protection officers, as well as kicking a window at Top Shop.

Quote:

udge Price made it clear that Gilmour was not being sentenced for swinging from a flag attached to the Cenotpah, an act which caused public outrage but did not constitute either of the two violent disorder charges against him. Instead he was sentenced for throwing a bin at a car carrying royal protection officers and for kicking the window of a nearby Top Shop store.

Hardly running battles, and it doesn't seem to me that anyone was actually at any risk of injury (apart from himself/his foot). Don't get me wrong, I do think he deserves some punishment, it just seems that sending him to prison seems disproportionate and serves little purpose. It's not like he was fighting running battles with the police and throwing stones. I'm not sure if I'd class a bin as a weapon either. As I said earlier, the average city centre sees worse violence on an average weekend, and that doesn't seem to attract the same level of punishment.

Flyboy · 18-07-2011, 12:31

Quote:

Originally Posted by denphone

Sorry Danielf but l have to disagree with you because if it was me l would have given him 5 years for what he did especially for his total lack of any common decency on the Cenotaph and also for his other disgraceful acts as well.

Quote:

Originally Posted by martyh

It does have to be put in perspective .We see burglars and muggers get community service and yet someone who swings off the cenotaph ,although morally outrageous to decent people a relatively harmless incident get jail time .I think the real issue here is how do we get consistency in sentencing

From what I understand his charges didn't even relate to the incident at the cenotaph.

---------- Post added at 13:31 ---------- Previous post was at 13:28 ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hugh

Actually, for violent disorder you can get up to five years.

Indeed you can, but you have to be very, very violent and very, very disorderly to get it. Throwing a bin at a car is nowhere near what you would typically get sixteen months for, let alone five years.

**Chris** · 18-07-2011, 12:34

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flyboy

From what I understand his charges didn't even relate to the incident at the cenotaph.

No, they relate to throwing a bin at a moving vehicle, thereby endangering the health, if not the lives, of the occupants (which he must surely have been aware of) and by extension the safety of members of the Royal family (which he was almost certainly aware of).

If someone threw a large object at me while I was driving my car, I would sincerely hope that the threat to my safety caused by the incident would result in the offender being dealt with very firmly.

Flyboy · 18-07-2011, 12:59

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris

No, they relate to throwing a bin at a moving vehicle, thereby endangering the health, if not the lives, of the occupants (which he must surely have been aware of) and by extension the safety of members of the Royal family (which he was almost certainly aware of).

If someone threw a large object at me while I was driving my car, I would sincerely hope that the threat to my safety caused by the incident would result in the offender being dealt with very firmly.

I am sure I would as well, but looking at the context, which I am sure you would be keen on observing, the car seemed to have stopped, if not was moving very, very slowly as it had been blocked by the crowd.

**Hugh** · 18-07-2011, 14:41

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flyboy

I am sure I would as well, but looking at the context, which I am sure you would be keen on observing, the car seemed to have stopped, if not was moving very, very slowly as it had been blocked by the crowd.

Oh, that makes it ok then......

denphone · 18-07-2011, 14:45

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hugh

Oh, that makes it ok then......

Not in my mind as nobody can excuse his violent and disrespectful behavior in this shocking episode.

**Damien** · 18-07-2011, 14:50

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris

No, they relate to throwing a bin at a moving vehicle, thereby endangering the health, if not the lives, of the occupants (which he must surely have been aware of) and by extension the safety of members of the Royal family (which he was almost certainly aware of).

If someone threw a large object at me while I was driving my car, I would sincerely hope that the threat to my safety caused by the incident would result in the offender being dealt with very firmly.

But there would be a difference between throwing a brick at a fast moving car and a bin at a slow moving car. It's unlikely he would have seriously risked their life by throwing a bin - my understanding the bin was not especially hard or heavy such as the concrete ones usually found around London - more likely he risked damaging the car.

Pauls9 · 18-07-2011, 14:53

Umm - if you're driving a car slowly through a crowd and a large black object suddenly comes into view heading towards you, what's the chance of you accidentally swerving and injuring someone who's leaning on your vehicle? Or do you realise it's only a plastic bin and don't react?

denphone · 18-07-2011, 14:53

Quote:

Originally Posted by Damien

But there would be a difference between throwing a brick at a fast moving car and a bin at a slow moving car. It's unlikely he would have seriously risked their life by throwing a bin - my understanding the bin was not especially hard or heavy such as the concrete ones usually found around London - more likely he risked damaging the car.

But the fact remains he still threw the item and that is violent behavior.