advertisement


Bloody hell, that seems a bit over the top? 14 years..

Attempted murder of police officers. Incredibly light sentence IMHO. Same goes for the drugged up celebs.
 
16 years for stabbing someone to death (murder):
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-berkshire-59595701
Just. IMHO.

15 years increased to 18 years for killing a baby:
https://www.avonandsomerset.police....d-his-39-day-old-baby-has-sentence-increased/
Just. IMHO.

14 years for putting a bit of half lit cardboard under a police van which is quite obviously not going to do anything, and of which the occupants could clearly get out of quickly...
Ridiculous IMHO.

Cannot believe anyone would really think that is a fair or just sentence...
 
Not just a bit of cardboard, it’s the intent. All the above sentences far too lenient IMHO.
 
“He told an officer inside one of the vans he would “go bang”.”

“A jury convicted Roberts of rioting, attempted arson with intent to endanger life, attempted arson being reckless as to whether life was endangered, and two counts of arson being reckless as to whether life was endangered.”

He needed jailing, obviously his conviction came with the potential of a 14 year sentence as detailed by the statute books, the judge decided his crimes were sufficient to justify the term given, some good information here, the short video explains really well. https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/sentencing-and-the-council/.
 
Acceptable standards for demonstrations are very much dependent on where the demo's are happening. A guy working security for a friend had been drafted into the ROK (South Korea) police force during the era when students were in a pretty long drawn out process of driving out a military dictatorship.Universal conscription meant this wasn't his choice. I commented about what seemed like really violent behavior -rebar being used as clubs -molotov cocktails thrown at the police ,etc. He explained that the police were equipped to deal with this - heavy duty riot shields ,fire resistant riot uniforms ,helmets and face shields , gas masks and really nasty high concentration CS gas grenades and wall of shields street clearing tactics.-. Despite this his national service was cut short by having his helmet split in half when hit by a blow from swung rebar -he got a fractured skull -was in a comma for three weeks . So -I asked him why if the mob was willing to be this violent they didn't use firearms. He laughed at me -it would never have occurred to the rioters since all the cops were armed and as he said "we'd shoot them all". So basic rules were followed by both sides even in the midst of chaos. Also-in this era the ROK had a truly enormous trained riot control police force and that was all they did -these guys weren't writing traffic tickets.
 
It's an exemplary sentence 'pour encourager le autres'. Feel like tearing down the system? Maybe you'll think twice if a long prison sentence is the result if you're caught trying to doing so.
 
Joe Hutch said:
It's an exemplary sentence 'pour encourager le autres'. Feel like tearing down the system? Maybe you'll think twice if a long prison sentence is the result if you're caught trying to doing so.
Click to expand...

I don't have a lot of sympathy with the individual in question I'm afraid but I suspect you're right. All part of a wider trend to make any form of protest illegal.

Among the new amendments are measures that would ban protesters from attaching themselves to another person, to an object, or to land. Not only would they make locking on – a crucial tool of protest the world over – illegal, but they are so loosely drafted that they could apply to anyone holding on to anything, on pain of up to 51 weeks’ imprisonment ... Other new powers would grant police the right to stop and search people without suspicion, if they believe that protest will occur “in that area”. Anyone who resists being searched could be imprisoned for – you guessed it – up to 51 weeks.

Perhaps most outrageously, the amendments contain new powers to ban named people from protesting ... Thanks to the draconian measures in the rest of the bill – many of which pre-date these amendments – it will now be difficult to attend a protest without committing an offence. Or we can be banned if we have attended or “contributed to” a protest that was “likely to result in serious disruption”. Serious disruption, as the bill stands, could mean almost anything, including being noisy. If you post something on social media that encourages people to turn up, you could find yourself on the list.

https://www.theguardian.com/comment...oned-51-weeks-protesting-britain-police-state
 
Genuine protest is a dignified act. Getting off your head on coke and alcohol as preparation undermines this.
 
audiopile said:
Acceptable standards for demonstrations are very much dependent on where the demo's are happening. A guy working security for a friend had been drafted into the ROK (South Korea) police force during the era when students were in a pretty long drawn out process of driving out a military dictatorship.Universal conscription meant this wasn't his choice. I commented about what seemed like really violent behavior -rebar being used as clubs -molotov cocktails thrown at the police ,etc. He explained that the police were equipped to deal with this - heavy duty riot shields ,fire resistant riot uniforms ,helmets and face shields , gas masks and really nasty high concentration CS gas grenades and wall of shields street clearing tactics.-. Despite this his national service was cut short by having his helmet split in half when hit by a blow from swung rebar -he got a fractured skull -was in a comma for three weeks . So -I asked him why if the mob was willing to be this violent they didn't use firearms. He laughed at me -it would never have occurred to the rioters since all the cops were armed and as he said "we'd shoot them all". So basic rules were followed by both sides even in the midst of chaos. Also-in this era the ROK had a truly enormous trained riot control police force and that was all they did -these guys weren't writing traffic tickets.
Click to expand...
They were trying to put a full stop to it all.
 
As with revocation of citizenship, you start with unsympathetic cases like this to establish the principle, stress test the principle with increasingly sympathetic cases (think Shamina Begum) and eventually you can just do whatever you want to anybody.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top