Keyboard warriors - will the jail sentences deter others?

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.

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.

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, 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’

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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?

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

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.

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.

That's for the police or judge to decide.

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

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.

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.

I think an acknowledge of the issues would be a great start, however what are the “issues” ?

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?

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.

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?

What you mean is threats to kill are different when I say so.
That's really not what I mean at all.

nanna8

Not individuals but issues. How hard is that to contemplate? The government will use these dreadful people advocating violence as an excuse to avoid the issues. It is easier to do that than to admit it is just possible there is a reason other than sheer thuggery for the strong feelings. So middle class, aren’t we? I give up.

At this stage we just don't know what the government will do. They have had to stop the violence, and getting to the root of the problems that have festered over the past couple of decades will come next, I hope.

The last lot blethered on about levelling up. but as with so many of their promises, they forgot about it when they got power - they 'flip flopped' if you like.

I agree that for too long people's concerns have been minimised. I think it started with Brexit, when Brexiteers were ridiculed for being uneducated older people with limited political awareness. I was very much a Remainer, but I didn't like those stereotypes. I don't want to rehash the arguments, but very few people (including me) really knew what would happen. It was a best guess for all of us. But before that, Thatcher talked about 'Moaning Minnies' who expressed concern for the ex industrial areas that had been laid waste. All people needed to do was get on their bikes and they, too, could benefit from all the investment that was poured into the SE of England. Never mind that their homes and families were in Yorkshire, Nottingham or Durham, or that their houses were consequently worth a quarter of the cost of one in the South, they were whingers, whose skills were rendered useless for political reasons, and were written off.

It's easy to preach about how X doesn't cause Y, and how bigoted those who can't see that must be; but if you are getting up at 6.00am to go to work for minimum wage and your neighbour stays in bed but gets the same amount of money in benefits, or if you have saved for the future but can't spend your money for fear of accusations of 'deprivation of assets' but your neighbour has spent their income as they got it and gets pension credit and/or free social care, then of course you will be resentful. Then having people tell you that you are 'superior' or head tilt and tell you that you don't understand how hard it is for some to save just puts the icing on the cake - just how can someone on low wages hope to make a better life when up against this system? It infuriates me, and I've been lucky enough to have a decent job and to be able to buy a house, so am less affected by it (unless my husband or I need care in future).

Bring immigration into the mix, so people see (eg) Polish brickies willing to work for lower wages as they are living three to a room, and those whose own wages fall as a result don't care that the construction industry needs foreign labour - they just want to feed their kids and pay the rent. Pointing out that membership of the EU allows freedom of movement both ways, so their children can study abroad on the Erasmus scheme is unlikely to cut any ice either, and then patronising them for not caring about that just makes things worse.

There are so many examples of how this sort of thing plays out, and I agree that 'we' ignore them at our peril. I suspect that it's the fact that the UK inevitably lines up along 'us' and 'them' lines that will get in the way of progress, however.

Because it perpetuates the idea of one rule for them one rule for us. Which will be disastrous in the long run.
I could use the SNPs MPs just the same, that was just last year I think, standing smiling at the protest with the banners saying decapitate terfs floating next to them.
But they get to say ooops just a mistake.