Keyboard warriors - will the jail sentences deter others?

Casdon

The decision about degree of intent is always ultimately going to be down to a judge though, because it’s impossible to define intent at a generic level, isn’t it?

It’s difficult as many things are just a figure of speech and some aren’t.

That's for the police or judge to decide.

I've never heard such a fuss about the law being upheld.

ronib

Casdon well I read that there were 5,100 followers- the community facebook page? Well my feeling is that it was hardly a serious intention to incite mayhem. Rather stupid but not of serious intent… or alternatively, as the 53 year old was a carer for her husband perhaps not thinking with any clarity?

She has to be accountable like we all do though ronib. I can’t think of any mitigating circumstances at all that would excuse what she said. The punishment is obviously decided by judges from the options available to them, which seem to be very limited from what has been said.

Oreo

Casdon

The decision about degree of intent is always ultimately going to be down to a judge though, because it’s impossible to define intent at a generic level, isn’t it?

It’s difficult as many things are just a figure of speech and some aren’t.

Exactly.

growstuff

nanna8

Oh some sense . Thank you for that. It is so easy to label people as fascist, racist, far right etc but the underlying issues are being ignored. I would hope a party referring to itself as Labour would address this or try to but we’ll see, doesn’t look promising. It won’t be easy,that’s obvious , but at least they could acknowledge the issues.

Don't you think that a person who incites others to bomb a mosque with people in it is racist?

On the face of it, inciting others to "bomb a mosque" appears to be more "religionist", seeing Islam itself as the enemy, but as most of the obvious Muslims are from the Middle East and beyond, and Asian, African or Arab, she is confusing religion and race. She may be well off and have a thriving business, but she is not very well-informed.

Oreo

MaizieD

Oreo

I very much doubt that anyone knew about the online safety law brought in just last year.I will be totally honest and say I didn’t.

I'm afraid that ignorance of the law is not a valid defence in a court case.

I know, and have said so earlier on. It was only brought in last year tho, and the ones who said awful stuff on SM didn’t know about it, if they had they would never have done it.

But surely they know that it is as wrong to threaten lethal violence against a whole demographic as it is to send a poison pen letter threatening it to a specific individual?

Anything said on Facebook including a "small community Facebook account can be passed on to a much wider SM audience.

I think a major problem are those who post online who conflate and justify attacks on our British Muslim community with immigration.

Thats where the danger and damage lay in the riots and remains so.

Influential SM posters at the highest level regularly conflate the two, sometimes oh so cleverly to avoid prosecution, but down the line it is direct - attack a mosque thats been standing and used for years - because you are concerned about immigration. And no distinguishing between legal immigration and asylum seekers, either.

Sometimes after some time on Social Media I go say to the local park or supermarket and watch families where children of different backgrounds are peacefully playing together or picking up their crisps or veg and just frankly have no respect for the hatred.

Elegran

growstuff

nanna8

Oh some sense . Thank you for that. It is so easy to label people as fascist, racist, far right etc but the underlying issues are being ignored. I would hope a party referring to itself as Labour would address this or try to but we’ll see, doesn’t look promising. It won’t be easy,that’s obvious , but at least they could acknowledge the issues.

Don't you think that a person who incites others to bomb a mosque with people in it is racist?

On the face of it, inciting others to "bomb a mosque" appears to be more "religionist", seeing Islam itself as the enemy, but as most of the obvious Muslims are from the Middle East and beyond, and Asian, African or Arab, she is confusing religion and race. She may be well off and have a thriving business, but she is not very well-informed.

I know, but if I had written Islamophobic, some bright spark would have come along to nitpick the definition of the word.

The woman wrote her post as a direct response to seeing pictures of people (from a variety of backgrounds) helping with clearing up and rebuilding. It appears she has a problem with people who are more empathetic and less bigoted than she is.

MissAdventure

That's for the police or judge to decide.

I've never heard such a fuss about the law being upheld.

Absolutely.
The laws of this country seek to protect the public against those who incite violence on our streets.
If there are people who feel genuinely put out by this I suggest they get a petition going and submit it to government.
But doubt it will get enough signatures. Most people prefer to feel protected from violent thugs on our streets and those who incite them.

Perhaps we should tickle them really hard until they promise not to do it again.

MissAdventure

Perhaps we should tickle them really hard until they promise not to do it again.

By Jove - I think you've got it, this of course would have worked brilliantly

Am trying to smile MissAdventure but the distance between a tickling and a slap on the wrist and a prison sentence is just too great.
Some of the arrested did deserve prison no doubts at all but equally some didn’t IMO.

Well, obviously the police, and subsequently the judge did think their behaviour warranted a sentence.

As far as I'm concerned, it's good enough for me.

Oreo, your belief that had the ‘keyboard warriors ‘ known about the law, they wouldn’t have done it suggests you have more faith than I do. People know throwing bricks or attacking the police is against the law but there they were, doing exactly that. Many of them wise enough to follow the advice on line to ‘mask up and leave your mobile at home’

Faith in what?
Remember that the laws surrounding this SM issue were only passed last year, I didn’t know and I bet that most didn’t know.
If they had realised it could mean prosecution and a sentence it seems likely they would have been careful.
One young guy got a sentence for throwing a can and shouting,
I think in the effort to show the deterrent factor that real justice got lost along the way.I know others are happy with all the sentences but I’m really not.

Oreo

Faith in what?
Remember that the laws surrounding this SM issue were only passed last year, I didn’t know and I bet that most didn’t know.
If they had realised it could mean prosecution and a sentence it seems likely they would have been careful.
One young guy got a sentence for throwing a can and shouting,
I think in the effort to show the deterrent factor that real justice got lost along the way.I know others are happy with all the sentences but I’m really not.

There are two different issues there, surely?

You say that if the SM people had known they wouldn't have done it, which suggests that the laws act as deterrents, which is good, surely? I do understand how people can say things online without really thinking - it's easy to think we are 'amongst friends' when actually our words can reach a far wider audience. Also, people post from their own homes, which seem far removed from the wider world, and sometimes they will be under the influence of alcohol and/or drugs, so their judgement is impaired. But there has been a lot of publicity about vigilantes, stalkers and 'trolls' being prosecuted, as well as about the impact on their victims. People like Andrew Tate have been prosecuted for online incitement, too, and there have been well-publicised cases of online libel and defamation (eg 'Wagatha Christie', Katie Hopkins and others). I don't think that people know nothing of the fact that online behaviour is subject to the law.

The second issue is the violence. 'Throwing a can and shouting' might not fully represent the crime. What did he shout? It it was 'burn the hotel' it is very different from just making a noise. And did he throw a can (of what?) at someone with intent to injure, or was it thrown at a window with intent to damage property, or at a car, with intent to cause fear or endanger the occupants? Or something else?

I am not punitive by nature, and do not want to see young lives ruined because of a lapse of judgment, but after the first riots the PM and others made it clear that there would be a zero tolerance policy on disorder. People were warned in no uncertain terms that if they indulged in disorderly behaviour they would be caught and punished. This message was repeated over the course of the week or so that the riots continued.

No new legislation has been passed by the newish government. So the laws were ones set by the Tory government. Some people seem to have forgotten that when blaming labour.

The man imprisoned for ‘throwing a can and shouting ‘ at police was charged and convicted of violent disorder. Presumably, he pleaded guilty hoping for a lesser sentence
The Go Fund Me page set up to help pay his mortgage had a £2,500 donation from Andrew Tate.
Surely he realised he was committing at least public order offences / I’d usually want alternatives to custody but - riots get serious attention and our alternatives to custody services need rebuilding.
Also I believe the consensus amongst the majority on a prison discussion recently, was hmp should be reserved for violent offenders

Grandmabatty I thought it was upto the judges themselves to interpret laws and sentence accordingly so from that perspective, it doesn’t matter which government is in power? The judges seem to be more concerned than I can remember over crimes committed by first time offenders. It’s judges who set sentences within guidelines surely?

I think legal tariffs for sentencing are more than "guidelines". Moreover, I think there are also legal reasons for mitigation or leniency. Obviously there will be some degree of subjectivity (even judges are human and fallible), but the parameters for sentencing are quite narrow.

growstuff I think 3 months would have been a fair time for the unfortunate 53 year old rather than 15 months. But what do I know?

Indeed.
What do any of us know?

That’s why the judge gives a summing up when sentencing. Obviously the news can only report some of them, but I think they are publicly available? The idea is that we all know, or can find out, what led to the severity or leniency of a sentence.

This is exactly where GSM would have contributed a link to the judgement. If the Judge had seen 3 months as an appropriate sentence for violent disorder, I expect s/he woukd have given that sentence. It may be a lower sentence was outside the guidelines.
I don’t see the offender as unfortunate. Our police were subjected to such hostility and violence as they tried to keep the peace