Riot!

[AndyRM]

So, these were people who were at the riot, involved in it and ran away to try and hide, then got arrested? I think the judge has made an arse of the way he's worded it, because you don't get picked up for watching something unless you've been specifically told move along.

People in Sunderland went for a look at the riots, none of them got lifted because they weren't involved.

 

[AndyRM]

 

[AuroraSaab]

What's your opinion on Huw Edwards? Was he an 'active participant' or could he claim to be a 'curious observer'?

Which riot was he at?

So, these were people who were at the riot, involved in it and ran away to try and hide, then got arrested? I think the judge has made an arse of the way he's worded it, because you don't get picked up for watching something unless you've been specifically told move along.

Surely you can see that judges saying stuff like this is a slippery slope? How can anyone coming up in front of that judge expect a fair trial now it's been made clear that they regard being there as the same as participating?

People in Sunderland went for a look at the riots, none of them got lifted because they weren't involved.

How can you possibly know this? Different police forces apply different criteria depending on the situation.

If a judge had said this about a Just Stop Oil incident, you'd be going nuts about it. Now it's 'Well there's no smoke without fire ...'..

 

[AndyRM]

Which riot was he at?


Surely you can see that judges saying stuff like this is a slippery slope? How can anyone coming up in front of that judge expect a fair trial now it's been made clear that they regard being there as the same as participating?



How can you possibly know this? Different police forces apply different criteria depending on the situation.

If a judge had said this about a Just Stop Oil incident, you'd be going nuts about it. Now it's 'Well there's no smoke without fire ...'..

I think he's chosen his words poorly, that's about it.

I know this because I know people who were there. The police said that as long as they weren't involved, they were fine.

And no, I wouldn't, largely because it hasn't happened so there's no point in making stuff up that I might have said.

I read the article, they were involved and got arrested. What's the problem?

 

[AuroraSaab]

The judge's words are the problem. Setting out the notion that being there is going to be treated the same in law as participating is the problem. Somebody will be along in a minute to say 'They can always appeal..'.

 

[Mr Celine]

Which riot was he at?


Surely you can see that judges saying stuff like this is a slippery slope? How can anyone coming up in front of that judge expect a fair trial now it's been made clear that they regard being there as the same as participating?



How can you possibly know this? Different police forces apply different criteria depending on the situation.

If a judge had said this about a Just Stop Oil incident, you'd be going nuts about it. Now it's 'Well there's no smoke without fire ...'..

Which illegal activities do you regard as a spectator sport?
Is it just rioting and looting or are you fine with everything else, and if so, why is that?

 

[AndyRM]

The judge's words are the problem. Setting out the notion that being there is going to be treated the same in law as participating is the problem. Somebody will be along in a minute to say 'They can always appeal..'.

Yeah, I get that. Equally though I don't think they're going to start lifting people who're randomly just watching events.

Like I said, unless you do something you've been told not to, you're not going to get lifted.

I'm no fan of the police, and given the level of scrutiny they're currently under they know they can't be seen to be doing anything out of line, which is a good thing. No guarantee they won't of course, but at least the level of observation is going both ways.

 

[AuroraSaab]

Which illegal activities do you regard as a spectator sport? Is it just rioting and looting or are you fine with everything else, and if so, why is that?

Do you think making/viewing/circulating child abuse imagery (or whatever he was accused of) is a victimless crime? It isn't.

Watching a riot isn't the same as participating in one and shouldn't be treated the same. Viewing child abuse images adds distress to the victim and generates the demand that results in more images being produced; it's not a victimless, passive activity.

I'm not fine with a judge suggesting that being present at a criminal offence will be treated as participating.

 

[AuroraSaab]

Like I said, unless you do something you've been told not to, you're not going to get lifted.

The police have a difficult job to do but it's simply not the case that they don't arrest/remove/visit people for doing things that are within the law. Again this 'No smoke without fire' thing is a bit perplexing to me.

 

[Bromptonaut]

Seems a bit authoritarian if you ask me. Can't even turn out to watch a riot anymore.

View attachment 6581

It's actually very authoritarian.

I think it's a combination of reporting and comments made ex tempore in court which appear to go further than they do.

Other reports suggest that at least one of the remanded suspects was seen by observers to be 'heavily involved' in a disturbance. Observers in a helicopter watched him flee the scene and he was picked up a few streets away.

He says he just went for a look but others say different.

I suspect that what Judge Rafferty meant was that you cannot claim to be an observer and expect bail if, as here, there's evidence of misconduct.

 

[AndyRM]

The police have a difficult job to do but it's simply not the case that they don't arrest/remove/visit people for doing things that are within the law. Again this 'No smoke without fire' thing is a bit perplexing to me.

I'm not saying that at all so I don't know where you're getting it from.

 

[AuroraSaab]

I suspect that what Judge Rafferty meant was that you cannot claim to be an observer and expect bail if, as here, there's evidence of misconduct.

Then he should probably have said that rather than what he did say.

 

[Mr Celine]

Do you think making/viewing/circulating child abuse imagery (or whatever he was accused of) is a victimless crime? It isn't.

Watching a riot isn't the same as participating in one and shouldn't be treated the same. Viewing child abuse images adds distress to the victim and generates the demand that results in more images being produced; it's not a victimless, passive activity.

I'm not fine with a judge suggesting that being present at a criminal offence will be treated as participating.

OK, so watching a riot is a victimless, passive activity and the victims of that riot will not suffer added distress by knowing that other people decided to watch.

 

[Rusty Nails]

People in Sunderland went for a look at the riots,

I suppose it passes for entertainment until the football starts.

 

[glasgowcyclist]

I'm not fine with a judge suggesting that being present at a criminal offence will be treated as participating.

Me neither.

He needs to clarify his statement, otherwise journalists, and people peacefully protecting a hotel or immigration lawyer's office will be subject to arrest and imprisonment.

That would be quite wrong.