Sergei Gotsmanov Posted 21 June, 2012 Share Posted 21 June, 2012 http://www.dailyecho.co.uk/news/9774948.Jail_for_Facebook_riots_post/ There has clearly been a breakdown in our justice system. Absolutely out rageous that nobody can see that his comments on Facebook were taken out of context. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skintsaint Posted 21 June, 2012 Share Posted 21 June, 2012 blimey. obviously was having a bit of a larf while it was happening and had no intention of starting anything. Surely community service at most?... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glasgow_Saint Posted 21 June, 2012 Share Posted 21 June, 2012 (edited) If you defend him - you will end up in jail too 3 years for inciting a riot that didn't happen? This country!! Edited 21 June, 2012 by Glasgow_Saint Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saint si Posted 21 June, 2012 Share Posted 21 June, 2012 At this rate, the Kaiser Chiefs should get life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glasgow_Saint Posted 21 June, 2012 Share Posted 21 June, 2012 At this rate, the Kaiser Chiefs should get life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pancake Posted 21 June, 2012 Share Posted 21 June, 2012 Bearing in mind the scant information in that article (we dont know of any other supporting evidence or previous he may or may have), we have to rely on the fact that the judge and jury were 100% behind his conviction and sentence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glasgow_Saint Posted 21 June, 2012 Share Posted 21 June, 2012 Bearing in mind the scant information in that article (we dont know of any other supporting evidence or previous he may or may have), we have to rely on the fact that the judge and jury were 100% behind his conviction and sentence. No previous and in full time work (mechanic) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anothersaintinsouthsea Posted 21 June, 2012 Share Posted 21 June, 2012 I don't want to be reactionary but people get far less for all sort of nasty crimes. Community service would've been much more appropriate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergei Gotsmanov Posted 21 June, 2012 Author Share Posted 21 June, 2012 I don't want to be reactionary but people get far less for all sort of nasty crimes. Community service would've been much more appropriate. He just be labelled as a prat for making the comments as would happen in a normal free society. How can a jury not understand that facebook attracts al sorts of comments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 21 June, 2012 Share Posted 21 June, 2012 (edited) I don't want to be reactionary but people get far less for all sort of nasty crimes. This is true and there have been several debates on here and eleswhere about the seemingly disproportionate punishments for various different crimes. When someone gets a tougher sentence for a lesser crime the natural reaction is often to say that the lesser crime should attract a lesser sentence. People rarely look at it the other way around - i.e. that the worst crimes should attract a much higher sentence. The are two ways of making punishments proportional to the crime....lower the disproportionately high punishments so they are below the existing punishments for the worst crimes or raise the disproportionately low punishments for the worst crimes so they are above the not so bad crimes. That's a long winded way of me saying that I would increase the punishments for worse crimes rather than, necessarily, decrease the punishment for lesser crimes. Edited 21 June, 2012 by trousers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Le Taxi Posted 21 June, 2012 Share Posted 21 June, 2012 Absolute travesty of justice, would have got less for robbing banks or sex crimes! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jjsaint Posted 21 June, 2012 Share Posted 21 June, 2012 This is true and there have been several debates on here and eleswhere about the seemingly disproportionate punishments for various different crimes. When someone gets a tougher sentence for a lesser crime the natural reaction is often to say that the lesser crime should attract a lesser sentence. People rarely look at it the other way around - i.e. that the worst crimes should attract a much higher sentence. The are two ways of making punishments proportional to the crime....lower the disproportionately high punishments so they are below the existing punishments for the worst crimes or raise the disproportionately low punishments for the worst crimes so they are above the not so bad crimes. That's a long winded way of me saying that I would increase the punishments for worse crimes rather than, necessarily, decrease the punishment for lesser crimes. Normally I would agree with this sentiment. However this is mad. Three years for posting on Facebook!?! I would expect an anti-Muslim rant to carry a jail sentence, aggravated racial or religious hatred I believe it's called, but not for three years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hatch Posted 21 June, 2012 Share Posted 21 June, 2012 effing stupid. His whole life now screwed over one flippant comment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 21 June, 2012 Share Posted 21 June, 2012 Normally I would agree with this sentiment. However this is mad. Three years for posting on Facebook!?! I would expect an anti-Muslim rant to carry a jail sentence, aggravated racial or religious hatred I believe it's called, but not for three years. On the surface, I agree, 3 years sounds relatively high in this case. That said, 12 men and women decided he was guilty of a crime that, one assumes, they would have known what the maximum punishment was for it. As such, he's been judged by his peers in accordance with a system that's been in use for hundreds of years. Whether we think this is right or wrong, I'm sure we'd all agree that it'll make people think hard before even jesting about inciting riots in the future. I'm not agreeing with the sentence per se, just trying to see both sides of the coin. I assume we'll see this go to appeal anyway and a lesser sentence handed down in due course. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
warsash saint Posted 21 June, 2012 Share Posted 21 June, 2012 http://www.dailyecho.co.uk/news/9770287.Child_porn_man_spared_jailed_term/ & in other news this guys is spared jail !!! Do this judges live in the real world ? Unbelievable Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matty's Caddy Posted 21 June, 2012 Share Posted 21 June, 2012 Just the usual yoof of today thinking they're wellard, any excuse to use violence in a group. There is little doubt in my mind that he meant exactly what he said 3 years, good Absolute tw4t Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonnyboy Posted 21 June, 2012 Share Posted 21 June, 2012 On the surface, I agree, 3 years sounds relatively high in this case. That said, 12 men and women decided he was guilty of a crime that, one assumes, they would have known what the maximum punishment was for it. As such, he's been judged by his peers in accordance with a system that's been in use for hundreds of years. Whether we think this is right or wrong, I'm sure we'd all agree that it'll make people think hard before even jesting about inciting riots in the future. I'm not agreeing with the sentence per se, just trying to see both sides of the coin. I assume we'll see this go to appeal anyway and a lesser sentence handed down in due course. So basically you'd have sent him down. Glad you don't run this forum, half of us would be banged up by now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dune Posted 21 June, 2012 Share Posted 21 June, 2012 An absolute disgrace. One would expect this sort of "justice" in a police state, not here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dune Posted 21 June, 2012 Share Posted 21 June, 2012 Can't we have a poll. Justice, or a travesty? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 21 June, 2012 Share Posted 21 June, 2012 oh well Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dune Posted 21 June, 2012 Share Posted 21 June, 2012 This is true and there have been several debates on here and eleswhere about the seemingly disproportionate punishments for various different crimes. When someone gets a tougher sentence for a lesser crime the natural reaction is often to say that the lesser crime should attract a lesser sentence. People rarely look at it the other way around - i.e. that the worst crimes should attract a much higher sentence. The are two ways of making punishments proportional to the crime....lower the disproportionately high punishments so they are below the existing punishments for the worst crimes or raise the disproportionately low punishments for the worst crimes so they are above the not so bad crimes. That's a long winded way of me saying that I would increase the punishments for worse crimes rather than, necessarily, decrease the punishment for lesser crimes. The thing about prison is you either see it as a punishment/deterrent, or a rehabilitationary exercise. Or a bit of both. In this poor lads case it's all about punishment/deterrent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redondo Saint Posted 21 June, 2012 Share Posted 21 June, 2012 3 years seems harsh, but would think 12 months minimum appropriate. Facebook is a public forum and as such is subject to UK law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Born In The 80s Posted 21 June, 2012 Share Posted 21 June, 2012 Just the usual yoof of today thinking they're wellard, any excuse to use violence in a group. There is little doubt in my mind that he meant exactly what he said 3 years, good Absolute tw4t This has got to be a joke, surely?? Many, many people write idiotic things on the internet (most of whom are taking the mick, or looking for a reaction). Why should this lad, who has never been in trouble with the police before, be turned into a hardened criminal with 3 years inside? I know you're probably just baiting, but your post really makes you look like a tit. Can't we have a poll. Justice, or a travesty? I can't believe there would be one person who would genuinely believe that 3 years is "justice". It actually makes me sick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dickyhale Posted 21 June, 2012 Share Posted 21 June, 2012 (edited) He needs to get his barrister to go for "Leave to Appeal" and get the whole case rolling. Maybe his legal team have already got the wheels in motion. Edited 21 June, 2012 by dickyhale Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Kraken Posted 21 June, 2012 Share Posted 21 June, 2012 At the very, very worst this should have been a community service sentence. Get him cleaning streets or something, a rap over the knuckles, a "don't be an aboslute weapon like that ever again". 3 years for making a rubbish and poorly timed joke on facebook. Lunacy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CB Saint Posted 21 June, 2012 Share Posted 21 June, 2012 There seems to be a general sentiment to send message to users of social media that they are not immune from the law and in this particular case an additional tariff due to the riots. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ken Tone Posted 21 June, 2012 Share Posted 21 June, 2012 3 years does seem harsh ,but we do not know what the whole case was. All we've seen is a short newspaper report -not usually the mostly reliable source! It would appear though that it was not one silly remark as some posters have said , but several which sound more than just silly, including ..... "When told to shut up by a friend, the 21-year-old replied: ''LOL (laugh out loud) - do a few coppers in.'' Southampton Crown Court heard how he then made another post encouraging an attack on Muslim people. "...... ....which if reported accurately does deserve some sort of sentence, even if not 3 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redondo Saint Posted 22 June, 2012 Share Posted 22 June, 2012 Funny how it is always a joke/messing around/wind up, when people get caught or confronted about something.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Golden Balls Posted 22 June, 2012 Share Posted 22 June, 2012 He's just being made an example of. Everyone can see this is well over the top but they seem to be coming down hard on social media. He'll probably have it reduced to 18 months and then serve half of that. However the 'kids' on Facebook and Twitter will only have seen the 3 years inside, and think twice about posting. That's the aim anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cryoman1965 Posted 22 June, 2012 Share Posted 22 June, 2012 3 years does seem harsh ,but we do not know what the whole case was. All we've seen is a short newspaper report -not usually the mostly reliable source! It would appear though that it was not one silly remark as some posters have said , but several which sound more than just silly, including ..... "When told to shut up by a friend, the 21-year-old replied: ''LOL (laugh out loud) - do a few coppers in.'' Southampton Crown Court heard how he then made another post encouraging an attack on Muslim people. "...... ....which if reported accurately does deserve some sort of sentence, even if not 3 years. If you had acab or kill a the bill tattoo would this deserve a sentence also? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergei Gotsmanov Posted 23 June, 2012 Author Share Posted 23 June, 2012 Funny how it is always a joke/messing around/wind up, when people get caught or confronted about something.... You miss the point. This is about the right to say silly things. Do you really believe he was trying to start a riot in Southampton. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redondo Saint Posted 23 June, 2012 Share Posted 23 June, 2012 You miss the point. This is about the right to say silly things. Do you really believe he was trying to start a riot in Southampton. The jury thought this was the case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
itchen_dan Posted 23 June, 2012 Share Posted 23 June, 2012 I know this guy and this is typical him. He is just a joker. Simple. I didn't know about these comments until a few days after he posted them but they were all just for a 'laugh'. He was simply joking around and thats the way everything in his life goes. Very harsh sentence IMO but now that he's been jailed, it sends out a message to others who will now think twice about writing any comments like this in future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergei Gotsmanov Posted 23 June, 2012 Author Share Posted 23 June, 2012 I know this guy and this is typical him. He is just a joker. Simple. I didn't know about these comments until a few days after he posted them but they were all just for a 'laugh'. He was simply joking around and thats the way everything in his life goes. Very harsh sentence IMO but now that he's been jailed, it sends out a message to others who will now think twice about writing any comments like this in future. Thats the point he has been sent down for stupid comments. Where does it stop? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aintforever Posted 23 June, 2012 Share Posted 23 June, 2012 Unbelievable sentence. Feel so sorry for the guy, life ruined over that. Probably handed out by some old judge who has no idea of the nature of social networking sites like facebook. Another reason for the harsh sentence is probably this: "Hampshire police had been monitoring sites like Facebook during the riots in an operation costing £400,000." Basically the hants rozzers had to justify wasting our money on a team of doughnut munchers to sit there and try to find someone posting something on the internet. To justify their excessive overtime I expect they exaggerated the seriousness to the clueless judge who in turn handed out the harsh sentence as a deterrent. No serious criminal is going to arrange anything on facebook FFS, the whole thing is a joke. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orange Posted 23 June, 2012 Share Posted 23 June, 2012 What an absolute joke. Typical though of the police state we live in. Meanwhile people who fuel the sex abuse of children through child porn get off free, makes you sick. Police offices often actually employ someone more or less full time to monitor facebook. So big brother is watching. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint in Paradise Posted 24 June, 2012 Share Posted 24 June, 2012 IMHO the sentence of 3 years is way way over the top, BUT yet again it proves that you must be very careful what you post via the Internet especially on FB. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Faz Posted 24 June, 2012 Share Posted 24 June, 2012 The police gatherd the evidence. The CPS thought there was a case to answer, the Jury found him guilty, and the judge passed the sentence in accorance with the sentencing guidelines. I'm not saying there are never mis-carriages of justice, but this isn't just about a 'police state'. Why did this end up in the Crown Court? Did he/his team elect for that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergei Gotsmanov Posted 24 June, 2012 Author Share Posted 24 June, 2012 The police gatherd the evidence. The CPS thought there was a case to answer, the Jury found him guilty, and the judge passed the sentence in accorance with the sentencing guidelines. I'm not saying there are never mis-carriages of justice, but this isn't just about a 'police state'. Why did this end up in the Crown Court? Did he/his team elect for that? It shows that the law is now now unable to differentiate between stupid comments and genuine threats to our security. With Hants police spending £400,000 on snooping in August last year and further measures eroding privacy you should be very afraid. Police state here we come. Remember this http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/libertycentral/2010/may/11/tweet-joke-criminal-record-airport Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonnyboy Posted 24 June, 2012 Share Posted 24 June, 2012 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Znb8dRascg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now