Students Rioting in London.

[Russ]

Originally Posted by Osem

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?

When hell freezes over, I'm guessing.

[Derek]

Originally Posted by Sparkle

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

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

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)

[Osem]

Originally Posted by Russ

When hell freezes over, I'm guessing.

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

Originally Posted by Sparkle

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

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

You think it's fair to send a kid to prison for 16 months for chucking a bin at a stationary vehicle?

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.

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.

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

We have rapists and paedos getting less than 16 months

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.

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.

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.

The judge decided to make an example of Mr. Gilmour, to send a clear message to others, not because of what he did.

. 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.

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?

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.

"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 !

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

[Sparkle]

Originally Posted by Chris

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

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

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Wow, more delusions.

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

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.

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

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?

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.

[Sparkle]

"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.

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

And the baying mob?

[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

[Osem]

[QUOTE=martyh;35278388]

Originally Posted by Sparkle

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

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.....

[QUOTE=Osem;35278508]

Originally Posted by martyh

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.....

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 ?

[Osem]

[QUOTE=martyh;35278517]

Originally Posted by Osem

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 ?

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.....

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.....).

Wheelchair protest man 'wins police complaint'

The police complaints watchdog has upheld a complaint from a man pulled from his wheelchair by police during a protest, says his lawyer.

[Derek]

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.

[Osem]

Originally Posted by Derek

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.

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?