Facebook riot post "trial" Options

[Richard Garvie]

Trial For Inciting Public Disorder

The trial of a Hungerford teenager charged with attempting to incite disorder in Newbury during the August riots will start today.

19 year-old Gary Cunningham allegedly posted messages on Facebook encouraging others to cause disruption in the town centre.

He faces charges under the Malicious Communications Act and will appear before West Berkshire Magistrate's Court.

(via Newbury Sound website)

Two men were sentanced to four years for the same offence. If it turns out that he has tried to incite violence, what is a reasonable punishment? I think four years is a bit much personally, I would rather see a long community punishment order and a hefty fine I think?

[Bloggo]

Trial For Inciting Public Disorder

The trial of a Hungerford teenager charged with attempting to incite disorder in Newbury during the August riots will start today.

19 year-old Gary Cunningham allegedly posted messages on Facebook encouraging others to cause disruption in the town centre.

He faces charges under the Malicious Communications Act and will appear before West Berkshire Magistrate's Court.

(via Newbury Sound website)

Two men were sentanced to four years for the same offence. If it turns out that he has tried to incite violence, what is a reasonable punishment? I think four years is a bit much personally, I would rather see a long community punishment order and a hefty fine I think?

I think 4 years is right considering he is likely to do only 2.
These anarchists have to learn that they can't get away with causing mayhem and riot.

[massifheed]

I think four years is a bit much personally, I would rather see a long community punishment order and a hefty fine I think?

Given that he was allegedly encouraging others to go out and cause damage to the community, a punishment that involves him having to work hard for the benefit of the community seems logical.

Having said that, I do wonder how much of a deterrant it is to people who would otherwise not get involved in such public disorder to see others being convicted and given long prison sentences.

Personally, I think that those who committed the offences in the summer (if they did think) would have assumed that there was no way they could be caught or, if they were, would get a low fine and few hours of community service. So I think the strict sentences given out so far may prove to have been a good example to those who might think of getting involved in similar disturbances in future.

[Bloggo]

Given that he was allegedly encouraging others to go out and cause damage to the community, a punishment that involves him having to work hard for the benefit of the community seems logical.

Having said that, I do wonder how much of a deterrant it is to people who would otherwise not get involved in such public disorder to see others being convicted and given long prison sentences.

Personally, I think that those who committed the offences in the summer (if they did think) would have assumed that there was no way they could be caught or, if they were, would get a low fine and few hours of community service. So I think the strict sentences given out so far may prove to have been a good example to those who might think of getting involved in similar disturbances in future.

Isn't that the whole point of a meaningful custodial sentence to demonstrate that society will not accept willfull, violent and criminal defiance of the laws that a civilised society live by.
If we cannot rely on the law to protect individuals, businesses and property against those that wish to detroy it then we will all become the victims of organised criminal gangs.
A 4 year sentence sends out the right message.

[Guest_xjay1337_*]

Given that he was allegedly encouraging others to go out and cause damage to the community, a punishment that involves him having to work hard for the benefit of the community seems logical.

Having said that, I do wonder how much of a deterrant it is to people who would otherwise not get involved in such public disorder to see others being convicted and given long prison sentences.

Personally, I think that those who committed the offences in the summer (if they did think) would have assumed that there was no way they could be caught or, if they were, would get a low fine and few hours of community service. So I think the strict sentences given out so far may prove to have been a good example to those who might think of getting involved in similar disturbances in future.

You have to balance the crime with the punishment. If you're a 19 year old student who's never been in trouble with the police and you steal an Xbox, then maybe that deserves community service or whatever; but to send that person to jail that for 2 years is counter productive because it'll not only cost the tax payer 10 times the price of the Xbox that was stolen originally but also mean that previously goody-two-shoes who nicked an Xbox when everything else went to sh** is more likely to be a repeat offender after a stretch.

It's admiral taking a stand saying it's dispicable and all of that but...too many people just jump on the (relative) serious punishment for punishment's sake. Those who can be traced to arson should be jailed, assaults, etc - yes, jailtime. Those who just wanted an Xbox...I mean really?

[Bloggo]

You have to balance the crime with the punishment. If you're a 19 year old student who's never been in trouble with the police and you steal an Xbox, then maybe that deserves community service or whatever; but to send that person to jail that for 2 years is counter productive because it'll not only cost the tax payer 10 times the price of the Xbox that was stolen originally but also mean that previously goody-two-shoes who nicked an Xbox when everything else went to sh** is more likely to be a repeat offender after a stretch.

It's admiral taking a stand saying it's dispicable and all of that but...too many people just jump on the (relative) serious punishment for punishment's sake. Those who can be traced to arson should be jailed, assaults, etc - yes, jailtime. Those who just wanted an Xbox...I mean really?

In my opinion I think that this case warrants a custodial sentence as he allegedly was inciting easily influenced people to riot which may have led to arson, damage and possibly worse.
He new what he was doing. He new it was wrong but he did it anyway without regard for who may have got hurt.
Lock him up.

[Guest_xjay1337_*]

Wasn't he the one who actually posted something like "ok lads let's go smash up the town " or something?

Clearly not meant in a serious manner. But who am I to say, I can't remember what his exact comment was and either way it's not the most important thing in the world since it's Hungerford

[Bloggo]

Wasn't he the one who actually posted something like "ok lads let's go smash up the town " or something?

Well, if you don't know what he said how can you make a judgement on what sentence should apply to a guilty verdict?

Clearly not meant in a serious manner. But who am I to say,

That's why he is going to court to prove the seriousness of his actions.

I can't remember what his exact comment was and either way it's not the most important thing in the world since it's Hungerford

What a do you mean by this ? Either I am missing something or it's a pretty silly comment?

[Guest_xjay1337_*]

Well, if you don't know what he said how can you make a judgement on what sentence should apply to a guilty verdict?

Like wise to you. I can't find any actual comments so who's to say if it was serious or jokey? But it takes a pretty sad, lonely little person to take everything written on FACEBOOK (known also as the portal of truth) seriously.

That's why he is going to court to prove the seriousness of his actions.

no, it's a fact of life. how many times do you say something but not mean it, how many times would something be meant in a jokey fashion? i can give loads of examples but most are not really public friendly and include underage girls who look overage, murder, death and general bad things.

What a do you mean by this ? Either I am missing something or it's a pretty silly comment?

It's probably just silly.

[Bloggo]

Like wise to you. I can't find any actual comments so who's to say if it was serious or jokey? But it takes a pretty sad, lonely little person to take everything written on FACEBOOK (known also as the portal of truth) seriously.

What he actually said is probably a matter that can't be published because of the trial but without generalising I bet that there a great many "sad, lonely little people" that take what is published on Facebook as gospel.

[massifheed]

But it takes a pretty sad, lonely little person to take everything written on FACEBOOK (known also as the portal of truth) seriously.

People just don't understand the consequences of their actions when it comes to Facebook, Twitter and other social media platforms (although people are now starting to). Often they assume that it's just the same as a conversation in private, or at home with friends etc.

If you publish (because that is what you are doing when you update your status, or post a new blog entry) something that is available for the general public to access, then you have to accept that if you write anything that breaks the law (libel, obscene etc) there is a chance, however small, that the law may come after you.

It wasn't that long ago that someone posted (either on here or the "other" forum) about being fired from their job after they had posted derogatory things about their employer on Facebook. Obviously that isn't illegal, but their employer deemed it as gross misconduct. It's not much of a defence to say, "It's just Facebook."

[Bloggo]

People just don't understand the consequences of their actions when it comes to Facebook, Twitter and other social media platforms (although people are now starting to). Often they assume that it's just the same as a conversation in private, or at home with friends etc.

If you publish (because that is what you are doing when you update your status, or post a new blog entry) something that is available for the general public to access, then you have to accept that if you write anything that breaks the law (libel, obscene etc) there is a chance, however small, that the law may come after you.

It wasn't that long ago that someone posted (either on here or the "other" forum) about being fired from their job after they had posted derogatory things about their employer on Facebook. Obviously that isn't illegal, but their employer deemed it as gross misconduct. It's not much of a defence to say, "It's just Facebook."

It may well be that the person in question did not really understand the implications of the statement he made on Facebook inciting criminal behaviour however ignorance of the law is not a defence and if this sort of action is not severely punished by a custodial sentence, if proven, then it sends the message that it is something that anyone can do with impunity.

[Richard Garvie]

Some people just aren't very bright, write stuff as a joke without thinking and don't expect anyone bar a few friends to see what they write. Whether that is what this case is, or it really was a serious attempt for people to cause chaos is for the judge to decide.

[Bloggo]

Some people just aren't very bright, write stuff as a joke without thinking and don't expect anyone bar a few friends to see what they write. Whether that is what this case is, or it really was a serious attempt for people to cause chaos is for the judge to decide.

Exactly. A lttle knowledge is a dangerous thing.

[Simon Kirby]

Isn't it actually contempt to discuss a criminal case whilst it's before the court?

[Andy Capp]

Isn't it actually contempt to discuss a criminal case whilst it's before the court?

Only if you are involved.

[Dodgys smarter b...]

What he actually said is probably a matter that can't be published because of the trial

if you don't know what he said how can you make a judgement on what sentence should apply to a guilty verdict?

In my opinion I think that this case warrants a custodial sentence
Lock him up.

A 4 year sentence sends out the right message.

Oh dear.

You could always sort it out yourself by getting on the Bench and then you'd have no complaints

Thus

[Simon Kirby]

Only if you are involved.

I don't think so. See for example here.

[Andy Capp]

I don't think so. See for example here.

From your source. It might be contempt if:

obtaining or publishing details of jury deliberations;
filming or recording within court buildings;
making payments to witnesses;
publishing information obtained from confidential court documents;
reporting on the defendant's previous convictions;
mounting an organized campaign to influence proceedings;
reporting on court proceedings in breach of a court order or reporting restriction;
breaching an injunction obtained against another party;
anticipating the course of a trial or predicting the outcome; or
revealing the identity of child defendants, witnesses or victims or victims of sexual offences.

However, it is acceptable to publish material as part of a discussion of public affairs or as a contemporary report of the day's legal proceedings.


One should proceed with caution, but I think were are safe at the moment.

[Simon Kirby]

From your source. It might be contempt if:

obtaining or publishing details of jury deliberations;
filming or recording within court buildings;
making payments to witnesses;
publishing information obtained from confidential court documents;
reporting on the defendant's previous convictions;
mounting an organized campaign to influence proceedings;
reporting on court proceedings in breach of a court order or reporting restriction;
breaching an injunction obtained against another party;
anticipating the course of a trial or predicting the outcome; or
revealing the identity of child defendants, witnesses or victims or victims of sexual offences.

However, it is acceptable to publish material as part of a discussion of public affairs or as a contemporary report of the day's legal proceedings.

anticipating the course of a trial or predicting the outcome; or

would appear to apply here.