Student protester jailed

I assume then that you think someone who steals a banana from a supermarket deserves 7 years in jail.
Click to expand...
Imho punishment should be in accordance to the damage caused.

Nick/ deliberately destroy something of one or 2 quid - dunno do community work for a couple of hours
Nick/ deliberately destroy something of 200 quid - Do community work for many weeks + fine of 600 quid or so.
Nick/ deliberately destroy something of 2000 quid - Some prison time ( say a couple of months) and full compensation of the damages, strip & sell the clothes of the person if needed if someone's that poor that they don't have 2k.
Nick/ deliberately destroy something 20k quid ( eg. some **** burns down your shed with lots of contents or damages your house, or burns your brand new car) - couple of years in prison and full compensation of the damages.
etc...
 
Last edited:
Von Smallhausen said:
The violence need not be extraordinary for a charge of riot.

It is more a case of numbers.

Affray is 1-2 persons, Violent Disorder 3-11 and Riot 12 and above.

The charging standards are quite similar.
Click to expand...

I think you have misunderstood my point. You are not going to get charged with riot merely because there are more than 12 of you doing it. If you can get charged with riot you can also be charged with violent disorder and affray. It's far more likely to be charged with the latter two unless there is a particular need to charge with riot.
 
I bet there is an appeal/reduction in sentence that gets far less publicity.

It always seems to me that whenever you see highly publicised strong sentencing which looks like the aim is to act as a deterent to others, what then follows is a quite appeal/reduction, to keep the numbers in custody/costs down.
 
Nitefly said:
I assume then that you think someone who steals a banana from a supermarket deserves 7 years in jail.

A charge of riot would be used for something extraordinarily violent and it wouldn't be appropriate in the given case to make such a charge.
Click to expand...



Banana rustling could be something that may not be allowed to go on in this country and as such if appropriate the judge may feel 7 years is appropriate if he feels it will dissuade other would be banana ruslters from indulging in that crime.

7 years is of course the max potential sentence for theft, but in the classification of theft its very low so would probably land you with a caution for shoplifting if its your first offence or maybe a fine + suspended if you are a habitual petty thief of fresh fruit.

So breaking and entering en masse into private property, destroying property, throwing some property from the top of a tall building with the intent to injure or cause harm, violently confronting the police, hurling missiles at police, instilling fear into the public and arson do not constitute extraordinary violence ? If it was a simple case of a couple of bricks through a window and the usual anti government abusive graffiti I would agree with you and say it was not extraordinary violence or a riot.

To say what happened at Millbank does not fulfil the criteria of a riot is insane, what needed to happen for it to be a riot???, dead police, raze the building to the ground, students pulling guns, hijacking an armoured police van and driving it through the door to number 10 ????
 
Westyfield2 said:
Less than 3 years for attempting to murder a group of people? What a joke.
Click to expand...

You cannot accurately or with any degree of confidence say he was attempting to murder someone. However based on the evidence the courts / judge probably felt they could justify charging him for violent conduct /disorder and maybe intent to cause harm. Short of the student getting a full psychological evaluation to ascertain if he was planing to murder someone there is no way any sane court or judge could charge him with that and make it stick.

Moreover can you please explain to me how you kill a group of people with a fire extinguisher from a top floor ?? Did you see the size of it, unless all the people on the ground were a bunch of hobbits, borrowers, extremely small dwarves or the fire extinguisher was the size of a small family hatchback there is no way he would have been able to 'murder a group of people' with it !!!!

Better to charge him with what the evidence supports and sentence him against that than pull out some fairytale charge that any good lawyer would drive a bus through.
 
Christ....

When I first opened the thread and read the OP i thought 3 years for throwing something off the roof might be a bit harsh but bugger me!!!!

I didn't realise the hight of the building or know if people were at the bottom... If that had hit someone on the head then I'm sure they would be dead...

If I (others) can think that it might kill some one then surely he must have known it might seriously harm someone (if not kill them)... 3 years may seem harsh but I think if you do stupid things like that then you deserve it (imho of course :p )
 
Agree with this sentence. I've seen what a fire extinguisher can do when thrown about 10 feet across a room, guy got a broken nose and fractured skull in my shop days at HS. Can't imagine what damage would have been done to anyone down there.
 
32 months. Excellent. That'll wipe the smile of his stupid face.

Actually, looking at the picture of him on the Sky website, it already has. :cool:
 
Basher said:
I'm not convinced he intended to kill someone. Yes he's stupid, yes he got caught up in the moment but I don't think he intended to murder.
Click to expand...

When you throw something that heavy off a building which is that high up, into a crowd of people what do you expect to happen? :confused:
 
sbi5ar said:
When you throw something that heavy off a building which is that high up, into a crowd of people what do you expect to happen? :confused:
Click to expand...

He was stupid and didn't think that far ahead, IMO. Thus, he's without question and idiot, but there was no intent to murder.
 
Basher said:
He was stupid and didn't think that far ahead, IMO. Thus, he's without question and idiot, but there was no intent to murder.
Click to expand...

I completely see your point and somewhat agree... I just don't get how he didn't think that far ahead... If I was about to do that... the effects and outcome would be the first thing I think of, and thus I wouldn't do it!

But I'm just made out of raw moral fibre though haha (jk) :p
 
wildman said:
Banana rustling could be something that may not be allowed to go on in this country and as such if appropriate the judge may feel 7 years is appropriate if he feels it will dissuade other would be banana ruslters from indulging in that crime.

7 years is of course the max potential sentence for theft, but in the classification of theft its very low so would probably land you with a caution for shoplifting if its your first offence or maybe a fine + suspended if you are a habitual petty thief of fresh fruit.

So breaking and entering en masse into private property, destroying property, throwing some property from the top of a tall building with the intent to injure or cause harm, violently confronting the police, hurling missiles at police, instilling fear into the public and arson do not constitute extraordinary violence ? If it was a simple case of a couple of bricks through a window and the usual anti government abusive graffiti I would agree with you and say it was not extraordinary violence or a riot.

To say what happened at Millbank does not fulfil the criteria of a riot is insane, what needed to happen for it to be a riot???, dead police, raze the building to the ground, students pulling guns, hijacking an armoured police van and driving it through the door to number 10 ????
Click to expand...

It was a riot by the legal definition.

However Riot very very rarely gets charged due to the fact that if they declare a riot has taken place then the local Police Authority become liable for any damage caused. The legislation responsible is the Riot Damages Act 1886.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom