The law is an ass
Discussion
Or maybe the lawyers/judges are taking us for fools.
It is seriously concerning..
https://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/midlands-new...
Jailed for 30 months
"There was no clear evidence that he was physically involved. He did not attack the police.
"He could not be seen to throw any missiles. He did not damage any property.
"He knows that by shouting the comments that he made that he was part of that incident and played an active part in that incident."
It is seriously concerning..
https://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/midlands-new...
Jailed for 30 months
"There was no clear evidence that he was physically involved. He did not attack the police.
"He could not be seen to throw any missiles. He did not damage any property.
"He knows that by shouting the comments that he made that he was part of that incident and played an active part in that incident."
It used to be that you pleaded guilty and got a reduced sentence, it doesn't seem to be the case with a certain type of crime ie protesting against immigration.
There was no violence involved on his part,just abusive language,he was clearly badly advised by his solicitor.
Prisons are under such pressure that people who have committed far more serious crimes than this fella are being let out early.
It doesn't appear very fair or sensible use of our prisons
There was no violence involved on his part,just abusive language,he was clearly badly advised by his solicitor.
Prisons are under such pressure that people who have committed far more serious crimes than this fella are being let out early.
It doesn't appear very fair or sensible use of our prisons
Bluevanman said:
It used to be that you pleaded guilty and got a reduced sentence, it doesn't seem to be the case with a certain type of crime ie protesting against immigration.
There was no violence involved on his part,just abusive language,he was clearly badly advised by his solicitor.
Prisons are under such pressure that people who have committed far more serious crimes than this fella are being let out early.
It doesn't appear very fair or sensible use of our prisons
It should be a reduction of a third for a guilty plea. Which conviction are you using as a benchmark to say there is no reduction for pleading guilty?There was no violence involved on his part,just abusive language,he was clearly badly advised by his solicitor.
Prisons are under such pressure that people who have committed far more serious crimes than this fella are being let out early.
It doesn't appear very fair or sensible use of our prisons
Bluevanman said:
Are you suggesting he would have got a 45 month sentence if he hadn't pleaded guilty ?
That would be within the range for either culpability A or harm category 1 in the sentencing guidelines, so quite possibly.If he thinks its too harsh, he can appeal the sentence.
Edit: also some aggravating factors:
Religious hostility
Active and persistent participant
Incitement of others
Edited by Mr Penguin on Wednesday 17th September 10:56
Bluevanman said:
It used to be that you pleaded guilty and got a reduced sentence, it doesn't seem to be the case with a certain type of crime ie protesting against immigration.
There was no violence involved on his part,just abusive language,he was clearly badly advised by his solicitor.
Prisons are under such pressure that people who have committed far more serious crimes than this fella are being let out early.
It doesn't appear very fair or sensible use of our prisons
That depends on how you look at it. Part of any sentence is the deterrent effect. Sending "rioters" to prison has the effect of making some people think about what could happen. There was no violence involved on his part,just abusive language,he was clearly badly advised by his solicitor.
Prisons are under such pressure that people who have committed far more serious crimes than this fella are being let out early.
It doesn't appear very fair or sensible use of our prisons
Drumroll said:
Countdown said:
"Awww....somebody whose views I share has been locked up, it's SO unfair!!!".
Behave like a prick, get treated like a prick.
Exactly.Behave like a prick, get treated like a prick.
"We want harsher laws and longer sentences"... One of their own pleads guilty to a violent offence "no, not like that".
paulw123 said:
Shouldn't have pleaded guilty. Much like the lady who tweeted. They had nothing on him.
Daft sentence considering what others get.
Do wonder if people like him are getting poor legal advice and effectively bring coherced into admitting to convictions.
This....Daft sentence considering what others get.
Do wonder if people like him are getting poor legal advice and effectively bring coherced into admitting to convictions.
I'd imagine he pleaded guilty some time ago as most now know(Ricky jones) that you just plead not guilty and you're off scott free irrespective of being recorded inciting violence, or in this guys case, being present and shouting!
Bluevanman said:
Are you suggesting he would have got a 45 month sentence if he hadn't pleaded guilty ?
Maximum sentence for violent disorder is 60 months.Sentencing range for a category B culpability in a category 1 incident is 24-48 months.
Racial abuse is a statutory aggravating factor.
https://sentencingcouncil.org.uk/guidelines/violen...
paulw123 said:
Shouldn't have pleaded guilty. Much like the lady who tweeted. They had nothing on him.
Daft sentence considering what others get.
Do wonder if people like him are getting poor legal advice and effectively bring coherced into admitting to convictions.
Public Order Act 1986Daft sentence considering what others get.
Do wonder if people like him are getting poor legal advice and effectively bring coherced into admitting to convictions.
2 Violent disorder.
(1)Where 3 or more persons who are present together use or threaten unlawful violence and the conduct of them (taken together) is such as would cause a person of reasonable firmness present at the scene to fear for his personal safety, each of the persons using or threatening unlawful violence is guilty of violent disorder.
(2)It is immaterial whether or not the 3 or more use or threaten unlawful violence simultaneously.
(3)No person of reasonable firmness need actually be, or be likely to be, present at the scene.
(4)Violent disorder may be committed in private as well as in public places.
(5)A person guilty of violent disorder is liable on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 5 years or a fine or both, or on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or both.
Seems to me that he was correctly advised to plead guilty, based on what’s said in the article. It’s the objective threat of violence in the circumstances that undid him. I’d assume the prosecution had some people lined up to say that they feared for their personal safety.
If you want to have a pop at someone, have a pop at the Government in 1986 that passed this. Conservative, under Thatcher.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff