Riot!

[matticus]

The whole point of sentencing guidelines is to ensure some sort of scale to recognise severity of offending surely. We should be able to compare crime A with crime B and be confident that the legal system has its priorities right.

Well yes ... but are you trying to say the guidelines are wrong for this crime? Or wrong for [various other crimes you've cited]?
Or that THIS sentence is at the wrong end of the guidelines?
I hope you see the problem - there are (at least) 3 things going on at once!

 

[monkers]

Well yes ... but are you trying to say the guidelines are wrong for this crime? Or wrong for [various other crimes you've cited]?
Or that THIS sentence is at the wrong end of the guidelines?
I hope you see the problem - there are (at least) 3 things going on at once!

It's just whataboutery.

 

[AuroraSaab]

Well yes ... but are you trying to say the guidelines are wrong for this crime? Or wrong for [various other crimes you've cited]?
Or that THIS sentence is at the wrong end of the guidelines?
I hope you see the problem - there are (at least) 3 things going on at once!

Both. Basically a year in jail for every hour her nasty tweet was up vs no jail time at all for possession of 100k child abuse images undermines public confidence. People have literally called for individuals to be killed on social media and got community service.

The sentencing guidelines are based on whataboutery. That's the whole point of them. A sliding scale of offences where the tarif can be seen as fair in relation to other crimes and to ensure that it's less open to the whims of individual judges.

If this case gets 3 years, then Ricky Jones the 'We need to cut their throats' feller should get at least the same tarrif surely?

(No he shouldn't, that would also be a stupidly long sentence for his offence .... but it would be consistent).

 

[monkers]

Both. Basically a year in jail for every hour her nasty tweet was up vs no jail time at all for possession of 100k child abuse images undermines public confidence. People have literally called for individuals to be killed on social media and got community service.

The sentencing guidelines are based on whataboutery. That's the whole point of them. A sliding scale of offences where the tarif can be seen as fair in relation to other crimes and to ensure that it's less open to the whims of individual judges.

If this case gets 3 years, then Ricky Jones the 'We need to cut their throats' feller should get at least the same tarrif surely?

(No he shouldn't, that would also be a stupidly long sentence for his offence .... but it would be consistent).

Unbelievable.

Please at least attempt a cogent rational argument. This attempt at criticism of the sentencing guidelines by use of a crude invention of a formula that works on proportionality between the length of a live tweet and a prison sentence is absolutely absurd. I've seen you post weird and lurid stuff to support your views any number of times, but this takes the biscuit.

 

[AuroraSaab]

Must you infect every topic with your pompous arrogance? It's a rhetorical question. The answer is yes, yes you must.

 

[monkers]

Must you infect every topic with your pompous arrogance? It's a rhetorical question. The answer is yes, yes you must.

I'd rather be ''pompously arrogant'' than deranged. Thank you for the invitation to make the comparison.

An thoughtful comparison between sentencing guidelines for differing crimes might make for an interesting topic for discussion, and worthy of its own thread, but given your latest opinions, I doubt it would stand a chance of any reasonable conclusions.

 

[mjr]

You can't possibly know that and we don't usually jail people on the basis of a connection of tenuous inspiration for the offences of others. These sentences do nothing to restore confidence in the judicial system, they simply bolster the view that it's a two tier system.

How many people do you think someone should have to tell to set a hotel on fire before they are jailed?

 

[mjr]

Both. Basically a year in jail for every hour her nasty tweet was up vs no jail time at all for possession of 100k child abuse images undermines public confidence.

Sorry but where did you read that she had 100k child abuse images? I've not seen that reported anywhere.

 

[Bazzer]

Sorry but where did you read that she had 100k child abuse images? I've not seen that reported anywhere.

I think AS is referencing the absence of prison sentences for offenders such as Hugh Edwards. Although I have no wish to look up which offender had 100k child abuse images in their posession and avoided a prison sentence.

 

[the snail]

Both. Basically a year in jail for every hour her nasty tweet was up ...

Irrelevant. She would have been just as guilty if she had stood in front of the mob and spoken those words. Incitement to arson/murder is a very serious offence, particularly in the context of the racist rioting.

 

[mjr]

I think AS is referencing the absence of prison sentences for offenders such as Hugh Edwards. Although I have no wish to look up which offender had 100k child abuse images in their posession and avoided a prison sentence.

It's not Edwards. He was done for 41 images and did get a six month prison sentence, suspended for two years.

While recieving those pictures is wrong and illegal, it doesn't seem like it should have as harsh a sentence as actively trying to persuade people to burn down a hotel of people, does it?

 

[AuroraSaab]

I've never suggested Edwards should have been jailed. The small number of images meant the chances of that was zero. I am talking about more serious offenders.

The fact is others have incited to people to assault and received zero jail time.

How many people do you think someone should have to tell to set a hotel on fire before they are jailed?

Nobody can control how many people read a tweet, or re post it. I haven't suggested she shouldn't be jailed, only that these deterrent sentences are too long. And we've released stalkers and domestic violence abusers early to make space.

 

[spen666]

...
The fact is others have incited to people to assault and received zero jail time.



.....

Because someone got a wrong sentence in a different case is no reason for future courts to give wrong sentences.



Incidentally, I would be interested to know exactly which cases you are referring to, so I can compare the outcomes properly and look at facts in light of sentencing Council guidelines.

Can you provide a link to any such case?

 

[Bromptonaut]

Both. Basically a year in jail for every hour her nasty tweet was up vs no jail time at all for possession of 100k child abuse images undermines public confidence. People have literally called for individuals to be killed on social media and got community service.

The Judge's sentencing remarks have been published on line:

https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/Connollysentence.pdf

They set out what was alleged to be posted and for how long together with details of other similar tweets.

He goes through the history including he pleading guilty early but not at the first opportunity and measures her offending against the guideleines before pronouncing sentence.

If she, or those advising her, think it's too long she can appeal.

I don't understand the point about the guidelines and Whataboutery.

However giving details of other cases where John Doe or whover got off and saying 'what about John Doe' is Whatboutery defined!!

 

[mjr]

I've never suggested Edwards should have been jailed. The small number of images meant the chances of that was zero. I am talking about more serious offenders.

Who? And Edwards did get a prison sentence, which you seem to be ignoring. It's just not clear yet if it will be enforced.

The fact is others have incited to people to assault and received zero jail time.

No, they haven't, not among the Farage riot charges yet.

Nobody can control how many people read a tweet, or re post it.

Yes, you can: don't post it and no-one will read it; or post it and thousands upon thousands might read it. All the fascists still using that site must know that when they post and behave accordingly.