Uk Riots and Protests (2024)

[jfman]

Originally Posted by Hugh

Link, please?

https://www.echo-news.co.uk/news/nat...-refused-bail/

Apologies the Belfast case was remanding someone into custody, not sentencing remarks, but the principle stands around the potential a Government you don’t like politicising the judiciary to quash dissent subject to a number of people in attendance going on to commit crimes.

https://www.newsandstar.co.uk/news/2...acebook-posts/

This is the other one. I don’t dispute at all whether it’s grossly offensive (it is). A 12 week jail sentence does seem disproportionate. Nobody was prosecuted for the 80 million Turkish people coming to the UK billboard.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by jfman

https://www.echo-news.co.uk/news/nat...-refused-bail/

Apologies the Belfast case was remanding someone into custody, not sentencing remarks, but the principle stands around the potential a Government you don’t like politicising the judiciary to quash dissent subject to a number of people in attendance going on to commit crimes.

https://www.newsandstar.co.uk/news/2...acebook-posts/

This is the other one. I don’t dispute at all whether it’s grossly offensive (it is). A 12 week jail sentence does seem disproportionate. Nobody was prosecuted for the 80 million Turkish people coming to the UK billboard.

Totalitarianism will be cheered on by the liberal middle classes……then when it’s used against them they’ll wonder “how did this happen?”

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by jfman

https://www.newsandstar.co.uk/news/2...acebook-posts/

This is the other one. I don’t dispute at all whether it’s grossly offensive (it is). A 12 week jail sentence does seem disproportionate. Nobody was prosecuted for the 80 million Turkish people coming to the UK billboard.

The Turkish poster in question dates back to 2016. Since then, we've had last October's Online Safety Act. It will be interesting to see how extensively this is used as it was criticised at the time for inhibiting freedom of speech. Presumably this case was prosecuted under it?

Recent prosecutions under it include a 25-year-old man jailed for falsely claiming online he was being chased by far-right rioters, and for rapper Omar Abdirizak, aka “Twista Cheese”. He is alleged to have posted a video online claiming that Tommy Robinson had called on people to attack mosques. Robinson shared the video saying he was being threatened by the rapper, and “had never called for anyone, ever, to attack any mosque”.

The case that is making headlines under it is that of Bernadette Spofforth, of Chester, alleged to be the first person to spread false information on X that wrongly identified the suspect in the deadly Southport attacks as being a Muslim immigrant. She has been arrested but not charged.

---------- Post added at 09:51 ---------- Previous post was at 09:48 ----------

Originally Posted by Pierre

Totalitarianism will be cheered on by the liberal middle classes……then when it’s used against them they’ll wonder “how did this happen?”

The Online Safety Act 2023 was criticised for its restrictions on free speech at the time.

[jonbxx]

The always excellent Secret Barrister has written a good blog on the application of justice after the riots which is worth a read and dispels a number of myths around the charging and sentencing of those involved - https://thesecretbarrister.com/2024/...-online-myths/

People shouldn't be getting a knock on the door from the police for posts that aren't incitement, otherwise advocating for violence or criminality. Some of the people arrested for social media posts deserve it because they said people should be violent but just being offensive isn't enough to be criminally charged for me.

I don't believe in a complete right to free speech. But each exception to that needs to be justified. The reason we don't allow incitement is because it can directly lead to violence and any reasonable person knows it can. So we make that exception. As with any law if we're limiting an individual's freedom there needs to be a good case as to why.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by jonbxx

The always excellent Secret Barrister has written a good blog on the application of justice after the riots which is worth a read and dispels a number of myths around the charging and sentencing of those involved - https://thesecretbarrister.com/2024/...-online-myths/

Great article.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by jonbxx

The always excellent Secret Barrister has written a good blog on the application of justice after the riots which is worth a read and dispels a number of myths around the charging and sentencing of those involved - https://thesecretbarrister.com/2024/...-online-myths/

I mean, that’s just an extensive post saying it is two tier but that’s a price worth paying, is it not?

[jonbxx]

Originally Posted by jfman

I mean, that’s just an extensive post saying it is two tier but that’s a price worth paying, is it not?

The only thing that stands out is the speed of conviction but he or she does highlight the effectiveness of this is quelling the riots and has previously been shown to work back in 2011. It’s the same justice, just applied faster in clear cut cases.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by jonbxx

The only thing that stands out is the speed of conviction but he or she does highlight the effectiveness of this is quelling the riots and has previously been shown to work back in 2011. It’s the same justice, just applied faster in clear cut cases.

But it’s not the same justice if the same person who committed the same crime on a different week of the year (stealing items from shops, unpleasant or inflammatory tweets, etc.) is treated differently both in the process (being arrested at all; being remanded in custody) or in outcome (both in the types of, and length of, sentence).

[Stephen]

Originally Posted by jfman

But it’s not the same justice if the same person who committed the same crime on a different week of the year (stealing items from shops, unpleasant or inflammatory tweets, etc.) is treated differently both in the process (being arrested at all; being remanded in custody) or in outcome (both in the types of, and length of, sentence).

It is the same justice though. They all go through the same process under law. Different punishments for the exact crimes committed, stealing a loaf of bread is not exactly the same as looting a shop or multiple shops as an excuse for a 'protest' .

[jfman]

Originally Posted by Stephen

It is the same justice though. They all go through the same process under law. Different punishments for the exact crimes committed, stealing a loaf of bread is not exactly the same as looting a shop or multiple shops as an excuse for a 'protest' .

Your example - stealing a loaf of bread, is no different from the idiot who stole the crocs.

There will be many people who could, and should, be punished for their part in all of this. The two tier justice system will likely inadequately isolate them from the more minor, petty crimes.

Originally Posted by jfman

But it’s not the same justice if the same person who committed the same crime on a different week of the year (stealing items from shops, unpleasant or inflammatory tweets, etc.) is treated differently both in the process (being arrested at all; being remanded in custody) or in outcome (both in the types of, and length of, sentence).

It is if the legislation covering the offences allows for aggravating circumstances to be taken into account - which it does. Stealing a loaf of bread from Arkwright’s on a random Tuesday afternoon is not the same thing as looting one while a riot is taking place. This has been the law here for a very, very long time.

I’d also argue that being housebrick stupid enough to leave your house and join a riot because you think the rules are somehow suspended and it’s ok to go looting should certainly enter into decisions as to bail.

[Stephen]

Originally Posted by jfman

Your example - stealing a loaf of bread, is no different from the idiot who stole the crocs.

There will be many people who could, and should, be punished for their part in all of this. The two tier justice system will likely inadequately isolate them from the more minor, petty crimes.

It's very very different t. Stealing a loaf on a random day really doesn't compare to breaking in to a store and looting it in the middle of a riot and should rightly have a harsher punishment.

[jonbxx]

As the Secret Barrister blog post pointed out, there are pretty clear sentencing guidelines that Judges need to adhere and refer to. Take for example, the most common offence people are being charged with, namely violent disorder under the Public Order Act 1986. Here are the guidelines - https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk...nt-disorder-2/

The possible sentences range from community orders to 4 years 6 months in prison. Initially, the guidelines use tests for culpability and harm. Things that stand out are being involved in widespread and/or large acts of violence bumps things up as do things like attacks on police and public servants. After that there are the aggravating factors which include previous convictions, using weapons, throwing missiles and hostility based on presumed or actual protected factors with religion and race. Then finally, there are the mitigating factors such as level of involvement, remorse, caring duties and disability.

The guidelines are complex but they do ensure that sentences are consistent

[jfman]

Originally Posted by Chris

It is if the legislation covering the offences allows for aggravating circumstances to be taken into account - which it does. Stealing a loaf of bread from Arkwright’s on a random Tuesday afternoon is not the same thing as looting one while a riot is taking place. This has been the law here for a very, very long time.

I’d also argue that being housebrick stupid enough to leave your house and join a riot because you think the rules are somehow suspended and it’s ok to go looting should certainly enter into decisions as to bail.

I’m certainly not claiming that any of these people are particularly clever, far from it. The legislation does allow whether aggravating factors are taken into account but it’s where this discretion is being applied - the very choice to do so - will be susceptible to the most criticism for cases that at face value seem relatively minor.