Hungerford man accused of inciting disorder during riots

I wonder whether folk in West Berkshire think that if found guilty the same punishment should be given to him as the two lads that got four years for what I suspect was something fairly similar.

I guess this does prove one thing, that those that doubted the reach and influence of Social Media were wrong.

For starters, he has to be found guilty! Second, we would have to understand any mitigation.


What do you mean?

Well yes, of course if found guilty.

I thought that would be obvious but I've amended my post accordingly.

? As the trouble he was allegedly inciting did not happen I suggest that this shows that social media are not as influential as some might like to think.

Many shops, pubs and the cinema closed early because of rumours spread through social media, though I'm not suggesting that this was the work of the bloke named in the article.

It is the sort of point I would expect you to make if it were posted by someone else!

We then need to know of any mitigation. I would imagine he's 'bricking' himself at the moment. I wonder if the stiff sentencing will put 'casual' looters off?

Define "stiff sentencing".

It is widely acknowledged that the punishments have been stiff compared to precedent.

So the correct word is stiffer?

stiff or stiffer....... does it matter that much?

If you are just here to pick an argument, you will have to seek someone else to play with.

Yes, because these people are being handed out stiffer than normal sentences as AC pointed out but, in my opinion, they are not stiff sentences.

I'd say 4 years gaol for a victimless crime is stiff, however; the point I was making was I suspect that the sentences dished out will most likely put people off who were not previously known criminals, from joining in on any future looting (or any that have not joined in yet, but might have considered it in the future).

There is no such thing as a victimless crime, as an intelligent man you should understand this

Yes I thought we might differ on that one.
Leave it there eh?

I disagree, and as you're an apparently intelligent man, I would expect you to understand my use of this figure of speech.

As we are arguing different points, I feel you are being a little premature to state we differ (although I strongly suspect you will be proved right). You have seemingly high-jacked my post to suit your political position on the justice system.

This bloke tried to incite a riot. There can be no mitigating circumstances to excuse this action.
He deserves to get 4 years and I hope he does.

Might do to some people.

In a fair world, there is always room for mitigation, should there be any.

OK, what would you say were mitigating circumstances for this mans actions?

"For they have sown the wind, and they shall reap the whirlwind"

Just goes to prove that the Internet is not a save haven where you can post whatever you like without any consequences.

The two lads who got four years should have been giving stiff community punishment orders. No riots took place as a result, and if this lad in Hungerford is found guilty he should be given a couple hundred hours community service and a strong fine. A prison sentance would not be justified as there was no incident, but anyone who was posting about organising "a riot" should be given a very severe community punishment.

I disagree. Anything other than a custodial sentence sends out the message that inciting a riot, whether or not it is successful, is an action that is not serious enough to warrant a term in jail. His actions could have very serious consequences which is what he intended.
The soft sentences that you suggest do not serve to discourage this sort of mindless, violent and criminal behaviour.
You forget that people were killed and families wrecked as a direct result of these riots and that should not be allowed to happen because the law does not protect people and businesses.

Off the top of my head: low mental age (or some other pre-acknowledged mental disorder), or he might not have worked alone (it might not even be him). The people who got 4 years might have had previous, this might be his first offence.

Does a stiff fine & community service also apply to say someone inciting terrorism?

I think attempted, or conspiracy, should carry similar weight as accomplished acts. I'm not sure that trying to organise a riot is the same as attempted murder though.

In which case he needs to be held in a secure environment where he is restricted from inciting a riot.

There are a lot of "mights" in the rest of your post. I am saying that if it is proved that he did attempt to incite a riot then he needs locking up as do the others who were proved to be guilty.

Terrorism does not have to mean killing people.

I have the feeling the Govts. 'stiff' response to the looting last month is a precursor to ushering in some draconian legislation. Govts. have a habit of using something the public feel strongly about to rush through changes in the law which otherwise they'd not get away with. The public get all fired up & demand action & the Govt. take advantage of the hightened state of feeling.

Of course, if there are mitgating circumstances.

You could be right. I guess we wait and see. However I believe that the present justice system is far too weak and needs to be beefed up.

So no more deporting folk then.

I suspect there are a lot of people now who would ignore a 'call to arms', based on the sentencing dished out.


Of course there are 'mights', but you asked what possible mitigation could there be, and I am just giving you some examples.

The OP was 'should this person receive the same sentence as the other two'. I said that should depend on whether he is guilty, and what mitigation is argued. I am not arguing that he should not under any circumstances be given the same sentence.

Of course, but I think there is a difference between conspiring to kill people, and conspiring to make people feel their life is in danger.

While it is tragic that people died, I don't think one can rightly argue that trying to organise a riot is tantamount to conspiring to kill. Although it might not be far off. Trying to suggest that looting and rioting is as bad as conspiring to kill only gives the government a mandate to introduce legislation that we all might suffer from, or infringe personal liberties we enjoy.

I am sure that it's not planned that way, but it could easily end up that way. Is there any difference to when a person dies from a heart attack in a robbery?




What do you do in this scenario then? A fire is started in a looted store, trapping several of the looters and the the owners in an upstairs flat. What personal liberties are lost? The right to start a fire? The right to riot?

I believe in protest and taking it to the streets if necessary, but I don't think it's an invasion of my rights to limit what I can do in that protest.



Warning, warning, liberal alert. The intention of the two lads was to cause damage and chaos. Are you suggesting that laws should be changed to give custodial sentences to those who actually commit crimes. It's ok then to plan them up to the point of executing them?

'Any difference to when a person dies from a heart attack in a robbery', and what?


I'm sorry, you've lost me.


Thin end of the wedge. Labour introduced laws that were abused in such a way that an OAP was forcibly ejected from a Labour conference and detained under the Terrorism Act for simply heckling.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4292342.stm


That is what he seems to be saying, but your 'warning, warning, liberal alert' is rude and uncalled for.

The person who committed the robbery didn't mean to cause the person to have a heart attack, but it did happen as a result of the robbery.




The police should have the right to disperse people if the protest seems to be approaching a point where it's getting out of hand. Your example is a poor example in this discussion, as it is apparent that the steward and not the police were at fault. According to the
example, he was not even detained, just a little "interaction" occured.



Sorry if my comments appear rude, but again it seems like the arguements are going on the side of those who want to break the law for what seems like little more than greed. If you gave these rioters jobs, how many will still be in them 3, 6, 12 months down the line, especially if they are menial or manual labor jobs. Unless I am mistaken, if you plan a crime, it is then conspiracy.

That bit I understand, it is just that you asked what is the dereference between this and ... ?


He was refuse re-entry and detained under the Terrorism Act, although never charged with anything. His liberties were impinged.

"After being ejected Mr Wolfgang's pass was seized and he was detained under the Terrorism Act when he tried to re-enter the conference on Wednesday. "

I'm sure given time I could come up with other examples, but this just one off the top of my head.


People are expressing what they feel is appropriate justice, and just because they may not be as you see it, doesn't mean that they are feeling compassion for criminals at the expense of the victim.

I'm not the one suggesting it - the Govt. is by handing out custodial sentences for what could be called 'aggravated shoplifting' to first time offenders.

The media ( inc the NWN ) thrives on paranoia. Can you imagine the thoughts going through the minds of certain members of the local community after the 'Liquid incident'?

Whenever you commit an act of violence, there is always the possiblity a death may occur. The fact that you planned the act of violence, you have to accept the consequences of whatever happens.




Was re-entry refused by the police or the stewards/security where the event was taking place. I really doubt the police arrested the man under the Terrorism act for heckling. Your example also says the person next to the heckler was removed, because she complained about the actions of the steward. Again, what did this have to do with actions of the police.




So you think acting in a lawless and violent manner you should be treated as a normal shoplifter?

I think whether it was intended is taken into consideration when sentencing. Hence murder or manslaughter. One is a worse than the other.


The police detained the man under the Terrorism Act, which is not an arrest. Stewards have no right of detention.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/persona...egislation.html

Here are more
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-...ws-1228149.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2005/oc...ime.humanrights
http://londonphotographers.org/2010/05/abu...laws-continues/


I think you are getting muddled.

Which would you get rid of or revise given the choice?
Human rights Act?
Terrorism Act?

Should there be more Government control over social media and internet forums?

The events of last week strengthen those who make the case for less anonymity and privacy on the Internet.

Both are subject to misuse, so possibly both, although I couldn't tell you how. This is why we need to be careful when Government announce new restrictions of movement or behaviour. We need to realise that there is always a cost to anything.

we don't even know the context of the alledged comments. What if he had reposted a joke about having a riot? I think a few hundred hours community service actually teaches a big lesson, his peers will see him working and will take over a year to complete. Prison sentences aren't the answer to everything you know.

No, what happened in the riots was nothing more that mob rule rabid animal behaviour. It wasn't like it was a kid going into a shop stealing some sweets.

The penalties should be harsh to discourage behaviour like this in the future.

Electronic forms of mass communication have never, ever, been free from Govt. control & have always lacked any kind of privacy.

The law should be seen to be equitable.

Perhaps we should deal with him (them) something like this?

LOL @ second comment down

"Thumbs up if you were linked here by a right-wing nutter."