U.K. men get 4-year sentences for Facebook riot posts
news.cnet.com
news.cnet.com
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/aug/16/facebook-riot-calls...
"Perry Sutcliffe-Keenan, 22, of Latchford, Warrington, used his Facebook account in the early hours of 9 August to design a web page entitled The Warrington Riots. The court was told it caused a wave of panic in the town. When he woke up the following morning with a hangover, he removed the page and apologised, saying it had been a joke. His message was distributed to 400 Facebook contacts, but no rioting broke out as a result."
...used his Facebook account...to design a web page...
The word "design" implies stronger intent and effort than is actually required to post an event to Facebook. "Web page" is not typically used to refer to user-generated content on Facebook, but rather a distinct presence on the Internet that exists independently of and can be accessed without assistance from Facebook. Saying "web page" rather than "Facebook post" implies a much wider intended exposure than is actually likely.
His message was distributed to 400 Facebook contacts...
This number dropping seems like a journalistic scare tactic. Probably half or more of the users on Facebook have hundreds of Facebook "friends." Saying the message "was distributed to 400...contacts" implies deliberate, intended dissemination of the post. It is far more likely that the post simply ended up in his news feed automatically, and that many of his 400 friends didn't even see the post. It is also possible that he invited all of his Facebook friends to the event, in which case all 400 would receive the invitation, but that is far, far different from, say, distributing a crime-inciting newsletter to 400 willing subscribers, or sending instructions to an active criminal network of 400 members.
Meanwhile the banksters who have stolen billions from the public treasury have not even been charged, and won't be.
I think the change is law is to help clarify this a little more. In reality, once the perps in this case dived out the window, they could have pulled weapons and started shooting themselves.
I'd sooner face jail than that possibility.
Edit: took out attempt at humor
Blackshaw at least (because he actually showed up for his planned riot, the other chap didn't) would go to prison if he did this anywhere in the world. Even in the USA with its extremely strong protections for speech, inviting people to meet at a set place and time for the purpose of rioting is illegal.
Even Sutcliffe-Keenan (who at least was smart enough to delete his event from facebook after he sobered up) basically did the equivalent of calling a bomb-threat.
PS come and get me coppers.
Famous case from World War I. There was a socialist party guy, Charles Schenck, who thought war was a bunch of BS and the draft was slavery. He printed up 15,000 tracts and passed them out to people. Oliver Wendall Holmes, a fascist if there ever was one, said that criticizing the government was the same thing as "shouting fire in a crowded theatre" and you had no right to to such a thing that might bring about a riot. So they sent Schenck to prison.
That was the wrong decision. As you are wrong here.
The problem with this nonsense is it is provoking people to go from posting gag calls for rioting to realizing the situation is so bad rioting isn't enough. Armed revolution is what is needed. The violent overthrow of the government is inevitable at this point.
The Warrington posts by Perry Sutcliffe-Keenan were very similar, although he did actually title his event "The Warrington Riots." It was a similar invitation to meet at a location in the centre of the town at 7pm.
The rest of the information on the groups has not been released by police and has been removed from Facebook. (Source: I work in the media in the area concerned and have the police news release in front of me.)
(Which for these sort of offences are very unlikely to be applied.)
People pay dearly for the lack (or disregard?) of basic skills and practices (anonymity, wireless, encryption, route through server in another country, etc...) of how to exercise freedom of speech even in the countries where such freedom is known to not even be guaranteed by law, like Britain or Libya.
I won't argue that these sentences are disproportionate.
But is it what we need in response to this? I'd argue yes.
The spark for these "riots" was a gentleman who was killed during an arrest. Bad times, of course. Very bad times.
But it's important to understand that the details of /exactly/ what happened here are currently officially unknown. The official report has not been released.
On the back of this, groups of people all over the UK decided to go on organised shoplifting spree's. When asked by the media "Why" they said things like "To get back our taxes, innit." [SIC]
Perhaps a few, who are at the very least comfortable with criminal behaviour, need to be given these sorts of sentences - and then for the media to make it well known it's happened.
A deterrent. Unfortunate for those singled out for it, but perhaps one needed for the good of the whole society.
They looted charity shops for fucks sake. Parents supported the kids doing it.
Something had to be done. This was it.
It wasn't rioting or a protest.
And once again, the police will cover up any wrong doing, close ranks, just as they did with Jean Charles de Mendez. This is not OK. This is not acceptable, for a police force to kill people, and hide. You can pretend that it has nothing to do with this, but all you will be doing is pretending to yourself to make yourself feel better.
A protest about an unfortunate incident led to some people throwing stuff at the Police. This escalated.
Others then saw this as an opportunity to go looting in other towns.
Bringing up Jean Charles de Mendez at this point in time makes no sense at all. We have no idea what happened to Mark Duggan exactly yet.
Perfectly logical, and perfectly medieval.
On ones own, it is unlikely the average man will head off to a mobile phone store, force the shutter open, smash the windows and head off inside to collect some iOS booty.
Collectively, a group of men are considerably more likely to do so.
Organising a group of people on Facebook to gather and go forth and cause problems in a town is therefore a very serious issue.
(In this case, nobody did gather, but what if they did? Millions of pounds worth of damage may have been caused - as it was in other towns.)
Australian Immigration Officer: Do you have any prior criminal convictions?
Tourist: I didn't realise that it was still a requirement.
One wonders what sort of lawyer they had that recommended a guilty plea, or in the absence of a lawyer what was done to encourage that plea.
"Perry Sutcliffe-Keenan, 22, of Latchford, Warrington, used his Facebook account in the early hours of 9 August ..."
Dateline of story: Tuesday 16 August 2011
One also wonders how their lawyer allowed the situation to progress from alleged offense to media circus regarding four year sentence IN LESS THAN A WEEK. I don't know how Britain usually does things, but in the U.S. a non-violent victimless offender would generally spend most of the first week out on bail awaiting the gathering of evidence for a proper arraignment. Methinks someone has been railroaded.
But for more minor offences attracting sentences under six months, magistrates' courts have been sitting through the night to "process" literally thousands of small-time, mainly first offender criminals.
Courts have been under great political pressure to serve swift and tough "justice" such that minor offences have attracted fairly lengthy prison sentences. Take the case of the mother of two young children who slept through the Manchester riots, but whose flatmate gave her a pair of stolen shorts from a store the morning after. She got five months in prison, for an offence which (if it even got as far as court) would normally attract a period of unpaid community work and/or a fine. [http://menmedia.co.uk/manchestereveningnews/news/s/1455638_m...]
I personally can't see how any of these people can get a fair trial when the court is sitting at 3am, it's less than a week since their arrest, and politicians are pressing hard on unpaid magistrates for disproportionate sentences in a vague attempt to give the impression that a government that's fairly weak and lacking in public support is being "tough on crime."
I feel for those who are caught up in this system right now. I am no apologist for criminals, but at the moment, people leading fairly fragile and frugal existences are having even that taken away for political point-scoring.
As for the woman who accepted stolen goods from her flatmate - she deserved it. The right course of action would've been to advise her flatmate to turn herself in and return the goods, or actually call the police herself. She decides to go through the stolen goods, picking what she wants and wearing it.
As far as community work / fines - there's been a few articles on various newspapers by community workers and enforcers who plainly state that it has little to no impact. Dig a little deeper, and you'll find prisons in the UK happen to be quite nice; offering lot better facilities than many hostels. Plus, having spoken to a lot of officers, many state that if you don't clamp down on people when they break minor laws / rules - soon the boundaries shift and before they know it; they've become criminals.
Having witnessed first hand the devastation and destruction in Hackney - most small business owners who lost pretty much their whole lively hoods would state that the sentences being handed out aren't enough - and I whole heartedly agree. What still irks me is that nearly two-thirds of my hard earned money is being taken by the government in taxes, and is feeding these people in a prison cell; likely where they have access to a TV with Sky, a PlayStation, 3 good meals a day, clean bedsheets and clothes etc etc.
</sarcasm>
Really, I hope you have receipts for every item you've ever received from someone else.
Sure, these riots are wrong on many levels but this is totally disproportionate.
Then there's a very touchy matter of wether you really want kids being brought up by a mother who clearly turns a blind eye to rioting / looting, and indirectly even partakes in criminal activity (knowingly handling stolen goods).
This was not a dumb pointless soccer riot. It was provoked by the government violating the rights of the people. The people pushed back. Sometimes that turns violent. Sometimes it gets completely out of control. Sometimes it gets so out of control, that in the end the old regime is cast out and a new form of government instituted.
The French Revolution was no different. A bunch of hooligans mindlessly rioting and destroying things over some minor matter they should have just let go. But in the end, the king was dead, him and his wife's heads were cut off and spat upon.
This round the government got the upper hand. The people in the UK are not happy with how things are going. The revolution is not going to be this month, but it has started this month. The nation is already dead, having abused the people too long. Hard to say how much time they have before the final revolt, but it's obvious to this impartial outside observer that revolution is coming and the momentum is strong enough that throwing dissidents and fools in prison will only hasten its inevitable fall.
Except for the charismatic, well spoken Robespierre running the Terror as a matter of centrally-planned policy, and systematically purging his political competition within the Revolution by means that would have impressed Stalin and Mao.
The nation is already dead, having abused the people too long. Hard to say how much time they have before the final revolt, but it's obvious to this impartial outside observer that revolution is coming and the momentum is strong enough that throwing dissidents and fools in prison will only hasten its inevitable fall.
This reads like a Robespierre speech praising both the inevitability and the righteousness of the Revolution. Pray that you are wrong, because that sort of revolution leave the nation a smoking ruin.
The day the Rodney King verdict was announced I took part in one of hundreds of peaceful protest marches, which were interrupted by fascist police who tried to round up participants for legally exercising their right to protest. The next day I had to make a delivery in LA and saw the riots. I got out of there as soon as I realized what was going on but I saw enough to know the city was being burned to the ground by a populace outraged over injustice, not a thugs looking for free TVs. I never said "Wow this sucks, look at those undisciplined animals rioting". Instead I said, "Wow, this sucks, look at what happens if you don't value justice in a society."
The sentence of 4 years in prison of this kid for posting on Facebook some nonsense he deleted a couple hours later inviting people to join him at McDonalds for a riot meetup that never happened is not justice. Nor is throwing a mother in prison because her flatmate brought home some looted clothes and she accepted a pair of shorts. That is the reign of terror. It is not justice, it is fascism and extremism at its worst. The people calling for violent and extreme punishment of the protestors are insane and their actions bring the destruction of their failed nation that much closer.
Hopefully this hard justice will serve as a warning that this simply will not be tolerated in our civil society. If anything, it actually emphasises how lenient the court system normally is, and I firmly believe that sentencing should always be this strict.
That warning is better served by preceding a potential riot with a few decades of prompt, strict, and small punishments for failures of civility. A person who knows that there will be consequences does not participate in a riot. Or at least it would be a polite English riot with the mob leaders passing out cucumber sandwiches.
... I firmly believe that sentencing should always be this strict.
Alas, punishing an impromptu mob for the arson of its most destructive member does not un-burn-down a buildingful of shops, and the thrill of seeing the mob railroaded might even encourage a career-criminal arsonist who knew to take precautions against being identified.
Where was the general population when this was going on? Sitting at home watching TV. This is a big problem with society.
That's why a neutral judge does the judging in a trial and not the biased victims.
How many of those small businessmen shook their heads but did nothing over happy slappers and countless other creeping failures of the rule of law? Civilizations don't fall because the barbarians get strong but because the middle class stops defending civility. If the yeomanry do not guard their liberty, they abdicate it.
I'll stop writing here. If I go on I will start quoting The Boondock Saints and lose all credibility.
http://hackneycitizen.co.uk/2011/08/09/turkish-shopkeepers-s...
It's only recently in the UK that the law now favours the right to defend yourself and your property; before there was a perception of criminals having more rights having broken into your home than you ever did.
Don't get me wrong; I've always been in favour of effective punishment - but this is totally the wrong time for our justice system to "go spare".
Firm but fair is important in situations like this. I approve of punishing these two, who did something idiotic with the potential for great harm. A slap on the wrists, or a small fine maybe.
The problem is fear. Certain parts of our population are scared to he'll by these riots (ironically, most have probably not been within 10 miles if a riot...) fed by the media and a government trying to save their image. (I mean, they've switched from criticising the police for being heavy handed during the G20 protest to criticising them for being too standoffish! And the media are lapping it up)
I've been as disapointed in our justice system this week as I have been with the rioters.
If so, then I'd expect guilty pleas to often be sensible. If you know you are guilty, and you know that the prosecution has sufficient evidence to make it virtually certain you'll be convicted, why not plead guilty and hope that sways the court to leniency?
I'd expect a court to be more lenient with a defendant who admits his guilt and shows remorse for the crime than one who insists he is not guilty when he clearly is and clearly knows that he's going to be found guilty.
Any lawyer with a pulse would have done at least one of these things, but not a single one appears to have been done. Therefore their legal counsel was probably almost certainly impeded in some way. The judge appears to accept this impediment without blushing, so the bad counsel was probably planned. In other words, they are being railroaded.
I suspect the judge was sick and tired of 20 years of handing out wrist slaps at the behest of Parliament and their politically correct ministries and took the opportunity to land a few punches while the gloves are off. In other words, it is a continuation of the riots by other means.