Is this really worth 12 weeks in prison?
Discussion
RedTrident said:
There must be more to this. Surely we haven't arrived at a place where we're imprisoning people for sick jokes posted on the internet?
I think we have, almost.The things not in his favour were that it was a series of jokes/comments, and on his facebook page, where (I think) by people commenting causes them to appear in other places. It's possible he also commented on the replies in such a way that it made it look like he did it deliberately to cause offence, rather than for pure comedy-shock value.
Frankie Boyle (etc.) would argue that readers of his twitter are expecting "sick" jokes, and being a comedian his intention is clearly comedy. That said, s.127 doesn't SEEM to require intent to offend, just that the message is grossly offensive.
It would have been nice for him to plead not guilty, the best we can hope is that he appeals, but he doesn't seem the sort of person who would want to mount a strong campaign.
Pat H said:
I have no idea whether David Edwards (the solicitor) represented him during his stint as the duty dog or whether he was instructed as own client.
It doesn't really matter which.
He probably faced a prosecutor objecting to bail on the grounds that the defendant needed to be remanded for his own safety. Given the tales of a 50 strong mob baying for his blood, the prosecutor had a pretty strong argument.
So the defence lawyer makes the expedient decision to plead the defendant and get the case weighed off, anticipating that his punter would have a better chance of getting out.
But the magistrates impose an immediate custodial sentence. That's a pretty tough disposal.
But it is only 12 weeks. The defendant will serve half of it, before being automatically released. He might even get out sooner on a home detention curfew.
So he probably has about four or five weeks to do.
And he might be out sooner if he gets bail from a Judge at Preston Crown Court pending appeal against sentence.
Now if he had pleaded not guilty, I reckon that it would take at least a couple of months to get a trial date. And in the mean time he would very probably have been remanded in custody.
An acquittal following a two month remand is something of a pyrrhic victory if you would have been out quicker on a plea. Which is precisely the logic that was applied to the case by the lawyer.
Dave Edwards is an experienced and shrewd chap. I'm pretty sure he made the right call.
If he was duty dog he will have been paid less than £100 for his services. If he was legally aided he will have earned a fixed fee of £221.59 (plus VAT of course....)
I suppose the good thing about an aquittal would be that he wouldnt have a conviction around his neck for the forseeable future, which could provide some serious road humps to his prospects and travel plans.It doesn't really matter which.
He probably faced a prosecutor objecting to bail on the grounds that the defendant needed to be remanded for his own safety. Given the tales of a 50 strong mob baying for his blood, the prosecutor had a pretty strong argument.
So the defence lawyer makes the expedient decision to plead the defendant and get the case weighed off, anticipating that his punter would have a better chance of getting out.
But the magistrates impose an immediate custodial sentence. That's a pretty tough disposal.
But it is only 12 weeks. The defendant will serve half of it, before being automatically released. He might even get out sooner on a home detention curfew.
So he probably has about four or five weeks to do.
And he might be out sooner if he gets bail from a Judge at Preston Crown Court pending appeal against sentence.
Now if he had pleaded not guilty, I reckon that it would take at least a couple of months to get a trial date. And in the mean time he would very probably have been remanded in custody.
An acquittal following a two month remand is something of a pyrrhic victory if you would have been out quicker on a plea. Which is precisely the logic that was applied to the case by the lawyer.
Dave Edwards is an experienced and shrewd chap. I'm pretty sure he made the right call.
If he was duty dog he will have been paid less than £100 for his services. If he was legally aided he will have earned a fixed fee of £221.59 (plus VAT of course....)
I really wonder about the way Britain is going at times.
I would have thought that inciting all manner of unpleasantness on the British people at large was far more offensive than sick comments aimed at 2 kidnapped children whose whereabouts are unknown, however it seems that the courts don't see it that way.
Write to your MP.....
I would have thought that inciting all manner of unpleasantness on the British people at large was far more offensive than sick comments aimed at 2 kidnapped children whose whereabouts are unknown, however it seems that the courts don't see it that way.
Write to your MP.....
Yet at the same time, 12 miles away, a student union rep who posted another (or same) sick joke on his Twitter account is forced to issue an apology and keeps both his position and his freedom.
http://www.lep.co.uk/news/local/union-rep-apologis...
http://www.lep.co.uk/news/local/union-rep-apologis...
AnimalMkIV said:
Yet at the same time, 12 miles away, a student union rep who posted another (or same) sick joke on his Twitter account is forced to issue an apology and keeps both his position and his freedom.
http://www.lep.co.uk/news/local/union-rep-apologis...
I'm not sure if this a reflection of a lower standard of Uni student, or that social networking is just too advanced for some people to realise it's not the same as a private chat in the pub (Lewis Hamilton and Ashley Cole being two examples)http://www.lep.co.uk/news/local/union-rep-apologis...
GavinPearson said:
I really wonder about the way Britain is going at times.
I would have thought that inciting all manner of unpleasantness on the British people at large was far more offensive than sick comments aimed at 2 kidnapped children whose whereabouts are unknown, however it seems that the courts don't see it that way.
Write to your MP.....
There appears to be an inconsistency amongst judges as amongst premiership referees. I'm not sure we can say 'the courts' any more and mean a consistent judiciary.I would have thought that inciting all manner of unpleasantness on the British people at large was far more offensive than sick comments aimed at 2 kidnapped children whose whereabouts are unknown, however it seems that the courts don't see it that way.
Write to your MP.....
The judges words appear to me to be pandering to the growing cult of celebrity-based, mawkish blubbing tendencies which first sprang up around the time that distasteful blonde tart had her connections to our Royal family forcibly severed, although according to Ian Hilop's new prog. it's actually a return to our pre-Victorian character (or at least pre-Wellingtonian, anyway).
Those of us who really couldn't give a s
t what the likes of this oik post on the internet are afraid to say so publicly for fear of the angry mob. The angry mob, in this case appears to have been accepted as inevitable, although to my mind they are no more within the law than those looting and setting fire to Croydon or other urban centres last year.This kind of thing weakens my faith in our justice system a little more.
Pat H said:
If bail hadn't been an issue, then stuffing in a plea of not guilty and putting the prosecution to proof would have been a sensible path to follow.
That's trading off a criminal conviction, which will be with the guy for the rest of his life, against a few extra weeks in some horrible institution. Given the recent high court case, if I was the defendant I'd have chanced my arm on a not-guilty plea. I'd rather clear my name than worry about a few extra weeks.Frik said:
Was about to post exactly the same thing!oyster said:
Me too.
I'd like to live in a country with the freedom to express opinions, not the freedom to be offended by lowlife scum.
And I'm one of the most liberal people on here.
If I express an opinion that offends you then does that make me lowlife scum? You've never met the lad but are making an assumption because his sense of humour differs from yours. I'd like to live in a country with the freedom to express opinions, not the freedom to be offended by lowlife scum.
And I'm one of the most liberal people on here.
I may not agree with the comments he has posted but I can't have my right to freedom of opinions if others are denied theirs.
oyster said:
Riley Blue said:
He's being made an example of, I hope it works.
Me too.I'd like to live in a country with the freedom to express opinions, not the freedom to be offended by lowlife scum.
And I'm one of the most liberal people on here.
This case is a perfect example of people seeking out things to be offended by - same thing happened with the Andrew Sachs case - the majority of the people complaining will not have seen the original messages, they will have seeked out the "Look, look, a bad man is being naughty!" version and then tutted their way to the complaints section of FB or (in this case) grabbed their pitchforks to go and lynch the guy.
Man posts silly things on facebook when drunk, gets jailtime - madness...
oyster said:
Me too.
I'd like to live in a country with the freedom to express opinions, not the freedom to be offended by lowlife scum.
And I'm one of the most liberal people on here.
He posted it on Facebook, which only people who are 'Friends' with him will see. If they didn't like it they can 'un-friend' him. So essentially it was a joke (albeit a 'sick' joke) that was shared between friends; it's hardly a 'public' place. I'd like to live in a country with the freedom to express opinions, not the freedom to be offended by lowlife scum.
And I'm one of the most liberal people on here.
Cases like this do seem to show how out touch some judges are with the modern world. I suppose this in inevitable given most judges are well over 55. It's also unbelievable how quickly cases such as this get processed and the severity of the punishment given the way far more serious offenses (such as assault and burglary) seem to be treated by the CPS.
Frik said:
What an attractive young man.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff