Students Rioting in London.

Originally Posted by Sparkle

If you're quite rightly implying that people shouldn't believe anything the police say, then we're on the same page.

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

[Sparkle]

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.

Originally Posted by Sparkle

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

eh?

[danielf]

Originally Posted by Chris

I'm not in the hang em high brigade ... But neither do I buy the claim of "moment of insanity" when someone has gone to a protest kitted out with a mask and gloves. He obviously intended to do things that might make his identity of interest to the boys in blue. And his "moment" was caught on several cameras, in several locations, over an extended period of time during the day.

He went intent on hell raising and took steps not to get caught. Personally I am very comfortable with the principle of him being made an example of.

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.

Originally Posted by Sparkle

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

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.

[Sparkle]

Originally Posted by martyh

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

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?

Originally Posted by danielf

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.

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.

[danielf]

Originally Posted by Chris

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.

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?

[Sparkle]

Originally Posted by Chris

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

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 !

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.

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 !

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 .

Originally Posted by Sparkle

If you're quite rightly implying that people shouldn't believe anything the police say, then we're on the same page.

From your previous post's quote

It was not known at the time whether Clark was aware that the activists would in fact be arrested.

Crim/rioter/protester - benefit of the doubt
Plod - no chance

Nice to see consistency.....

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

Originally Posted by Sparkle

...snippety snip snip....

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 !

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 ----------

Originally Posted by Sparkle

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?

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 ----------

Originally Posted by Sparkle

Met police in lying shocker!

Originally Posted by Sparkle

snippety snip snip.

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 !

Oh, the irony......

Originally Posted by Hugh

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

Nice to see consistency.....

---------- 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?

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

[Osem]

Originally Posted by martyh

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

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...

[danielf]

Originally Posted by Osem

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 in court just to get off....

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.

[Osem]

Originally Posted by danielf

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.

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