"Perry Sutcliffe-Keenan, 22, of Latchford, Warrington, used his Facebook account in the early hours of 9 August to design a web page entitled The Warrington Riots. The court was told it caused a wave of panic in the town. When he woke up the following morning with a hangover, he removed the page and apologised, saying it had been a joke. His message was distributed to 400 Facebook contacts, but no rioting broke out as a result."
There are a number of technological misrepresentations in your quotation that would seem inconsequential to the average judge or journalist, but actually make a huge difference in meaning and effect:
...used his Facebook account...to design a web page...
The word "design" implies stronger intent and effort than is actually required to post an event to Facebook. "Web page" is not typically used to refer to user-generated content on Facebook, but rather a distinct presence on the Internet that exists independently of and can be accessed without assistance from Facebook. Saying "web page" rather than "Facebook post" implies a much wider intended exposure than is actually likely.
His message was distributed to 400 Facebook contacts...
This number dropping seems like a journalistic scare tactic. Probably half or more of the users on Facebook have hundreds of Facebook "friends." Saying the message "was distributed to 400...contacts" implies deliberate, intended dissemination of the post. It is far more likely that the post simply ended up in his news feed automatically, and that many of his 400 friends didn't even see the post. It is also possible that he invited all of his Facebook friends to the event, in which case all 400 would receive the invitation, but that is far, far different from, say, distributing a crime-inciting newsletter to 400 willing subscribers, or sending instructions to an active criminal network of 400 members.
So the guy posted a Facebook event, inviting people to the riots. Humorous, funny, probably took all of three minutes to accomplish, no harm done, four years in prison.
Meanwhile the banksters who have stolen billions from the public treasury have not even been charged, and won't be.
More accurately, look at what's been happening over the last several decades. The population has been disarmed bit by bit, first various gun rights were taken away until ultimately all gun rights were taken away in a hysterical response to the Dunblane massacre. Then every weapon was targeted, knives, batons, everything. Even self-defense rights were taken away, if you use your own fists in your own home to defend yourself against an attacker you could potentially go to jail. Meanwhile, British police powers have been growing out of control, with little to keep them in check. While the world made much note of the PATRIOT act in the US few people, even in the UK, paid much attention to the far more sweeping expansion of British police powers undertaken as "anti-terrorism" measures. All the while moving closer and closer to the ideal of a completely disempowered populace utterly dependent on the police for any degree of protection.
Given the way British law works I'd wait until a few high-profile cases have established a firm precedent to get too excited. Nevertheless, compared to the situation previous this is somewhat of an improvement.
Indeed. The last high profile case didn't work out very well for the defender did it, but I guess that was largely due to the robber being shot in the back. [1]
I think the change is law is to help clarify this a little more. In reality, once the perps in this case dived out the window, they could have pulled weapons and started shooting themselves.
Social media is no different from any other form of communication for trying to incite crime. Drunkenness is not an excuse for other crimes, and should not be for this one.
Jordan Blackshaw's event was entitled "Smash Down in Northwich Town" and included an invitation for something called the "Mob Hill Massive Northwich Lootin'" to meet behind the McDonald's in the town centre at 1pm. It also included the words "We'll need to get this kickin' off all over."
The Warrington posts by Perry Sutcliffe-Keenan were very similar, although he did actually title his event "The Warrington Riots." It was a similar invitation to meet at a location in the centre of the town at 7pm.
The rest of the information on the groups has not been released by police and has been removed from Facebook. (Source: I work in the media in the area concerned and have the police news release in front of me.)
If they'd just generally called for a riot that would be one thing (possibly still illegal), these guys set a particular time and place which is what did them in.
Blackshaw at least (because he actually showed up for his planned riot, the other chap didn't) would go to prison if he did this anywhere in the world. Even in the USA with its extremely strong protections for speech, inviting people to meet at a set place and time for the purpose of rioting is illegal.
Even Sutcliffe-Keenan (who at least was smart enough to delete his event from facebook after he sobered up) basically did the equivalent of calling a bomb-threat.
Hey we're "having a riot" out by the McDonalds on Orangethorpe Avenue in Anaheim tomorrow at 4pm. Hope you can make it, assuming free speech still exists in the US, unlike the british police state we fought to free ourselves from.
Free speech does not include planning a riot, any more than it does threatening to kill someone. This is one of the few exceptions to otherwise very strong rights to say whatever you want.
If you decide to come to the riot, could you bring the desert plates? Just a sack of 500 paper ones would be fine.
Famous case from World War I. There was a socialist party guy, Charles Schenck, who thought war was a bunch of BS and the draft was slavery. He printed up 15,000 tracts and passed them out to people. Oliver Wendall Holmes, a fascist if there ever was one, said that criticizing the government was the same thing as "shouting fire in a crowded theatre" and you had no right to to such a thing that might bring about a riot. So they sent Schenck to prison.
That was the wrong decision. As you are wrong here.
The problem with this nonsense is it is provoking people to go from posting gag calls for rioting to realizing the situation is so bad rioting isn't enough. Armed revolution is what is needed. The violent overthrow of the government is inevitable at this point.
I think this is all about public perception, they are doing this to convince the public they are now in control, despite the fact that most people involved in the riots are free. I would not be surprised if this is appealed and changed to a more reasonable sentence, in a few months, when people are more calm.
Can someone from the UK comment on if 4-year sentences are typically served to full term. I believe in America, you can be sentenced to 4 years and only end up doing a few months of the actual sentence.
2 years. But I expect they'll be out befor that, or more likely overturned on appeal - once the heat/fear has calmed down then there will be less pressure for panic over reaction.
speaking about value of anonymity on Facebook in particular and on the Internet in general...
People pay dearly for the lack (or disregard?) of basic skills and practices (anonymity, wireless, encryption, route through server in another country, etc...) of how to exercise freedom of speech even in the countries where such freedom is known to not even be guaranteed by law, like Britain or Libya.
I won't argue that these sentences are disproportionate.
But is it what we need in response to this? I'd argue yes.
The spark for these "riots" was a gentleman who was killed during an arrest. Bad times, of course. Very bad times.
But it's important to understand that the details of /exactly/ what happened here are currently officially unknown. The official report has not been released.
On the back of this, groups of people all over the UK decided to go on organised shoplifting spree's. When asked by the media "Why" they said things like "To get back our taxes, innit." [SIC]
Perhaps a few, who are at the very least comfortable with criminal behaviour, need to be given these sorts of sentences - and then for the media to make it well known it's happened.
A deterrent. Unfortunate for those singled out for it, but perhaps one needed for the good of the whole society.
They looted charity shops for fucks sake. Parents supported the kids doing it.
Prison sentences, fines, comunity service, etc are already a deterrent to crime. These deterrents (and punishments) are considered proportionate to the crime by the judge/jury. I see no reason to single out rioting to be different, apart from emotional ones.
So because x pounds of punishment wasn't a deterrent, we are to believe that x times two pounds of punishment will be? Why not, instead, work toward inspiring people to strive to do good, rather than punishing them into fearing to do evil?
You are getting over excited. There are many opportunities to riot, that are not taken. This is no the "first tiny window of opportunity".
And once again, the police will cover up any wrong doing, close ranks, just as they did with Jean Charles de Mendez. This is not OK. This is not acceptable, for a police force to kill people, and hide. You can pretend that it has nothing to do with this, but all you will be doing is pretending to yourself to make yourself feel better.
I can see where you are coming from, but in the case of the two involved in this story, it's a bit deeper.
On ones own, it is unlikely the average man will head off to a mobile phone store, force the shutter open, smash the windows and head off inside to collect some iOS booty.
Collectively, a group of men are considerably more likely to do so.
Organising a group of people on Facebook to gather and go forth and cause problems in a town is therefore a very serious issue.
(In this case, nobody did gather, but what if they did? Millions of pounds worth of damage may have been caused - as it was in other towns.)
"Jordan Blackshaw, left, and Perry Sutcliffe-Keenan, both pleaded guilty to using Facebook in attempts to fuel riots in Cheshire. They have been jailed for four years"
One wonders what sort of lawyer they had that recommended a guilty plea, or in the absence of a lawyer what was done to encourage that plea.
"Perry Sutcliffe-Keenan, 22, of Latchford, Warrington, used his Facebook account in the early hours of 9 August ..."
Dateline of story: Tuesday 16 August 2011
One also wonders how their lawyer allowed the situation to progress from alleged offense to media circus regarding four year sentence IN LESS THAN A WEEK. I don't know how Britain usually does things, but in the U.S. a non-violent victimless offender would generally spend most of the first week out on bail awaiting the gathering of evidence for a proper arraignment. Methinks someone has been railroaded.
This was a crown court case, which is even more concerning. Crown court is used for serious offences which require a punishment of more than six months in prison, so for a case such as this to get from arrest to multi-year crown court sentence in a week is hugely concerning. A case has to first be heard in magistrates' court and handed to crown court, so it will have been in the hands of Chester Crown Court for just a day or two.
But for more minor offences attracting sentences under six months, magistrates' courts have been sitting through the night to "process" literally thousands of small-time, mainly first offender criminals.
Courts have been under great political pressure to serve swift and tough "justice" such that minor offences have attracted fairly lengthy prison sentences. Take the case of the mother of two young children who slept through the Manchester riots, but whose flatmate gave her a pair of stolen shorts from a store the morning after. She got five months in prison, for an offence which (if it even got as far as court) would normally attract a period of unpaid community work and/or a fine. [http://menmedia.co.uk/manchestereveningnews/news/s/1455638_m...]
I personally can't see how any of these people can get a fair trial when the court is sitting at 3am, it's less than a week since their arrest, and politicians are pressing hard on unpaid magistrates for disproportionate sentences in a vague attempt to give the impression that a government that's fairly weak and lacking in public support is being "tough on crime."
I feel for those who are caught up in this system right now. I am no apologist for criminals, but at the moment, people leading fairly fragile and frugal existences are having even that taken away for political point-scoring.
I wouldn't feel for those having justice dealt to them, not one bit. They not only participated in the riots - but made an effort to promote them.
As for the woman who accepted stolen goods from her flatmate - she deserved it. The right course of action would've been to advise her flatmate to turn herself in and return the goods, or actually call the police herself. She decides to go through the stolen goods, picking what she wants and wearing it.
As far as community work / fines - there's been a few articles on various newspapers by community workers and enforcers who plainly state that it has little to no impact. Dig a little deeper, and you'll find prisons in the UK happen to be quite nice; offering lot better facilities than many hostels. Plus, having spoken to a lot of officers, many state that if you don't clamp down on people when they break minor laws / rules - soon the boundaries shift and before they know it; they've become criminals.
Having witnessed first hand the devastation and destruction in Hackney - most small business owners who lost pretty much their whole lively hoods would state that the sentences being handed out aren't enough - and I whole heartedly agree. What still irks me is that nearly two-thirds of my hard earned money is being taken by the government in taxes, and is feeding these people in a prison cell; likely where they have access to a TV with Sky, a PlayStation, 3 good meals a day, clean bedsheets and clothes etc etc.
Right, because everybody knows that taking a mother away from her children for five months to punish her for accepting a pair of pants that she didn't steal is justice.
</sarcasm>
Really, I hope you have receipts for every item you've ever received from someone else.
Sure, these riots are wrong on many levels but this is totally disproportionate.
Definitely a harsh ruling against her - but considering the legal system I doubt she'll spend any time in a prison cell.
Then there's a very touchy matter of wether you really want kids being brought up by a mother who clearly turns a blind eye to rioting / looting, and indirectly even partakes in criminal activity (knowingly handling stolen goods).
We also should arrest all the people in Tunisia, Egypt and Libya who rioted in their countries this year as well. Disorder must not be tolerated! Government power above all else! Bow before your gods, peasants!
There's rioting for the sake of a rebellion, hopefully leading to a revolution. Then there's rioting for the sake of looting and causing damage, nothing more.
Of course I agree that the UK riots were not the former, but I hope you see the problem with trusting the government to decide which one is which, and giving them special powers to punish people who riot (over and above the criminal acts of destruction that can already be punished under existing laws).
Tunisian riots started with people upset because of the way the police had abused some guy. Same as the UK. EXACT SAME THING. Not different at all. Police abuse provokes rioting that leads to the justified overthrow of the government. Only the ending turned out different.
This was not a dumb pointless soccer riot. It was provoked by the government violating the rights of the people. The people pushed back. Sometimes that turns violent. Sometimes it gets completely out of control. Sometimes it gets so out of control, that in the end the old regime is cast out and a new form of government instituted.
The French Revolution was no different. A bunch of hooligans mindlessly rioting and destroying things over some minor matter they should have just let go. But in the end, the king was dead, him and his wife's heads were cut off and spat upon.
This round the government got the upper hand. The people in the UK are not happy with how things are going. The revolution is not going to be this month, but it has started this month. The nation is already dead, having abused the people too long. Hard to say how much time they have before the final revolt, but it's obvious to this impartial outside observer that revolution is coming and the momentum is strong enough that throwing dissidents and fools in prison will only hasten its inevitable fall.
Except for the charismatic, well spoken Robespierre running the Terror as a matter of centrally-planned policy, and systematically purging his political competition within the Revolution by means that would have impressed Stalin and Mao.
The nation is already dead, having abused the people too long. Hard to say how much time they have before the final revolt, but it's obvious to this impartial outside observer that revolution is coming and the momentum is strong enough that throwing dissidents and fools in prison will only hasten its inevitable fall.
This reads like a Robespierre speech praising both the inevitability and the righteousness of the Revolution. Pray that you are wrong, because that sort of revolution leave the nation a smoking ruin.
Pointing out it's well nigh inevitable at this point due to systematic abuse of and disregard for human rights isn't saying that it is righteous or that the outcome will be good. Most revolutions lead to bad outcomes not good, but most revolutions are also inevitable. The British ubersurveillance police state experiment has gone too far and there are no signs of abating. This is not the only issue, there are others. It's pretty unlikely reform will come in time. It's not a wild pronouncement to note that the revolution has begun, it's just an observation of what is going on.
The day the Rodney King verdict was announced I took part in one of hundreds of peaceful protest marches, which were interrupted by fascist police who tried to round up participants for legally exercising their right to protest. The next day I had to make a delivery in LA and saw the riots. I got out of there as soon as I realized what was going on but I saw enough to know the city was being burned to the ground by a populace outraged over injustice, not a thugs looking for free TVs. I never said "Wow this sucks, look at those undisciplined animals rioting". Instead I said, "Wow, this sucks, look at what happens if you don't value justice in a society."
The sentence of 4 years in prison of this kid for posting on Facebook some nonsense he deleted a couple hours later inviting people to join him at McDonalds for a riot meetup that never happened is not justice. Nor is throwing a mother in prison because her flatmate brought home some looted clothes and she accepted a pair of shorts. That is the reign of terror. It is not justice, it is fascism and extremism at its worst. The people calling for violent and extreme punishment of the protestors are insane and their actions bring the destruction of their failed nation that much closer.
Harsh sentences like these will only serve to convince a large segment of the population that the system is unjust (and perhaps even that the riots were therefore a "good thing" (fight the system, etc, etc)).
These people weren't fighting any 'system' or for any cause. They plainly saw an opportunity to steal, vandalise and ruin the lives of many hard-working, law-abiding citizens, under the so called 'protection' of the mob.
Hopefully this hard justice will serve as a warning that this simply will not be tolerated in our civil society. If anything, it actually emphasises how lenient the court system normally is, and I firmly believe that sentencing should always be this strict.
Hopefully this hard justice will serve as a warning that this simply will not be tolerated in our civil society.
That warning is better served by preceding a potential riot with a few decades of prompt, strict, and small punishments for failures of civility. A person who knows that there will be consequences does not participate in a riot. Or at least it would be a polite English riot with the mob leaders passing out cucumber sandwiches.
... I firmly believe that sentencing should always be this strict.
Alas, punishing an impromptu mob for the arson of its most destructive member does not un-burn-down a buildingful of shops, and the thrill of seeing the mob railroaded might even encourage a career-criminal arsonist who knew to take precautions against being identified.
> Having witnessed first hand the devastation and destruction in Hackney - most small business owners who lost pretty much their whole lively hoods would state that the sentences being handed out aren't enough - and I whole heartedly agree
That's why a neutral judge does the judging in a trial and not the biased victims.
Having witnessed first hand the devastation and destruction in Hackney - most small business owners who lost pretty much their whole lively hoods would state that the sentences being handed out aren't enough - and I whole heartedly agree.
How many of those small businessmen shook their heads but did nothing over happy slappers and countless other creeping failures of the rule of law? Civilizations don't fall because the barbarians get strong but because the middle class stops defending civility. If the yeomanry do not guard their liberty, they abdicate it.
I'll stop writing here. If I go on I will start quoting The Boondock Saints and lose all credibility.
It's only recently in the UK that the law now favours the right to defend yourself and your property; before there was a perception of criminals having more rights having broken into your home than you ever did.
Has there been a change to the law? Can you give a reference please. I thought UK law has always allowed reasonable force to be used in defending your property..
This is just the tip of the ice berg; the most disparate crime/punishment of many.
Don't get me wrong; I've always been in favour of effective punishment - but this is totally the wrong time for our justice system to "go spare".
Firm but fair is important in situations like this. I approve of punishing these two, who did something idiotic with the potential for great harm. A slap on the wrists, or a small fine maybe.
The problem is fear. Certain parts of our population are scared to he'll by these riots (ironically, most have probably not been within 10 miles if a riot...) fed by the media and a government trying to save their image. (I mean, they've switched from criticising the police for being heavy handed during the G20 protest to criticising them for being too standoffish! And the media are lapping it up)
I've been as disapointed in our justice system this week as I have been with the rioters.
Do courts in the UK have any flexibility in sentencing? Do defendants generally know what evidence the prosecution has against them?
If so, then I'd expect guilty pleas to often be sensible. If you know you are guilty, and you know that the prosecution has sufficient evidence to make it virtually certain you'll be convicted, why not plead guilty and hope that sways the court to leniency?
I'd expect a court to be more lenient with a defendant who admits his guilt and shows remorse for the crime than one who insists he is not guilty when he clearly is and clearly knows that he's going to be found guilty.
What is the motivation for requiring a plea of not guilty before going to trial, apart from saving the court time and money? Why not default to a trial in all cases, allow the defendant to stop the trial by pleading guilty, but ensure that not pleading guilty is never seen as being unremorseful?
Their lawyers were supposed to be there beforehand, lawyering. Advising not to talk to the police, getting bail, doing the discovery investigation, establishing chain of custody of evidence, examining witnesses under the oath of perjury, establishing motivation and intent, establishing mental competence at time of offense, comparing the complaint to precedent, determining if the complaint corresponds to an actual law, excluding inadmissible evidence, getting a jury trial, changing the jury trial to a less hostile venue, and so forth.
Any lawyer with a pulse would have done at least one of these things, but not a single one appears to have been done. Therefore their legal counsel was probably almost certainly impeded in some way. The judge appears to accept this impediment without blushing, so the bad counsel was probably planned. In other words, they are being railroaded.
I suspect the judge was sick and tired of 20 years of handing out wrist slaps at the behest of Parliament and their politically correct ministries and took the opportunity to land a few punches while the gloves are off. In other words, it is a continuation of the riots by other means.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/aug/16/facebook-riot-calls...
"Perry Sutcliffe-Keenan, 22, of Latchford, Warrington, used his Facebook account in the early hours of 9 August to design a web page entitled The Warrington Riots. The court was told it caused a wave of panic in the town. When he woke up the following morning with a hangover, he removed the page and apologised, saying it had been a joke. His message was distributed to 400 Facebook contacts, but no rioting broke out as a result."