The Dean

http://m.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/aug/...k&type=article

mentalist

Not in my eyes. Innocent people could have been killed in the riots. It sends out a warning to other muppets planning similar action. Mind you, with good behaviour, they will probably be out within 12 months.

Kix

I agree, I was living in UK at the time, in an apartment above a shopping centre in Romford (shit hole town), riots were taking place outside and all we could see on the news was buildings burning, if the shopping centre had been torched then we'd all have been in a very bad place.

4 years is the minimum they should serve, I'd double it to add to their stupidity.

The Dean

Interesting............. I think the most significant aspect of this case is the medium used, not the message itself. I suspect we are going to see more 'social-media-related' court judgements like this...........

The bigger issue is: who polices the internet? And what is their jurisdiction? If a Facebook user in, say, the US incites a riot in London, what offence is he committing? Could he be extradited to face similar charges to these? Communication is global and immediate these days, and the old concepts of national law no longer apply...........

Beaverstate

I imagine that the free, unfettered and mostly anonymous internet may soon be less so.

Kix

Pair of muppets though, putting them on their own FB pages, ESP the guy that asked everyone to turn up at McDonalds, and then he did himself.

They deserve 4 years for being so stupid!

Norm_uk

Human rights groups called the sentence disproportionate. I ask where are the human rights groups when people have their possessions stolen, when property is burned down and when young people are mugged and beaten in the street by thugs?

4 years hard labour and a bit of indoctrination about the responsibilities of a citizen to society would be about right - with no chance or parole.

N.

seven seas

In case you aren't aware of this: human rights groups aren't meant to make sure your stereo doesn't get stolen or anything like that.

Anyway, where were YOU when pensioners got mugged?

Norm_uk

I'm actually aware of that - but my point (as I am sure you are aware) is that they get vocal about protecting the rights of perpetrators and seem silent on the rights of victims.

It's not my job to protect pensioners getting mugged either. I can call for proper justice for them and less focus on the rights of the scum who mug them though.

N.

seven seas

The rights of victims are a given.

Norm_uk

Assumed I would say...not always given.

And the whole point really is that criminals break the social contract and should only have minimal rights, depending on the crime.

N.

OleJanx

If you can't behave live a decent human being, why on earth should you expect to be treated like one?

Norm_uk

That's a better way of putting it.

N.

seven seas

My definition of decent may differ from someone else's.

Apart from that- I expect to be treated like one- even if I break the rules- because we live in a civilised society. There is a minimum standard below which we may not sink.

NorthernLad

I expect that standard differs between those who just saw this on the news and those who lost their livelihoods in the riots.

My fathers business used to regularly suffer from vandalism, being on a busy road. I've lost count of the amount of times he had to replace shop windows or have graffiti removed. For those who say 'it's insured' - you are ****ing braindead - policies are affected.

Believe me, when you work 6am to 7pm for 45 years then have to fork out to repair vandalism you will soon reassess your 'minimum standard'.