Fabrice Muamba

[Mattshark]

And in reality, the medium does matter when it comes to harassment. Impinging on the dignity of Twitterer546 is not the same as going so to a named individual, and its hard to argue that twitter is an 'environment' when someone can voluntary click another link and leave with no detriment to their lives.

Yes it is, don't be ridiculous, having some deliberately sending you directly, racially abusive tweets it is no different or more acceptable than walking up to someone and doing, additionally it is more permanent and still in the public domain.

Sorry but you are talking nonsense.

[Mattshark]

why is it not 'acceptable' in the public sphere?

He 'could' have got 7 years if he'd been charged and found guilty of other offenses. It is not for the CPS to decide what he could/should have got IF he'd been found guilty.

are you serious? Verbal abuse is no more acceptable than physical abuse and can be as equally damaging.

That is what the maximum allowable sentence is for the offence he committed and pleaded guilty too

[Kenneth]

Of course I'm serious. There is no reason for 'go and suck a n***** d***' to be criminal imo. And even if there is, you can't keep ignoring the incitement bit. Where is it?

"That is what the maximum allowable sentence is for the offence he committed and pleaded guilty too "
So considering the case, he could have got the maximum sentence? Really? edit: forgot the apparently necessary smiley.

You can keep generalising, 'you can't do whatever you want on the internet', 'verbal abuse can be very damaging', but he was charged with incitement to racial hatred, and I still insist he didn't incite racial hatred. I conclude that the incitement to racial hated law being interpreted wrongly, and in a way that ks damaging to free speech. You say he's a bad un and speculate about what he could have been charged with but wasn't and think he was lucky not to get nearer the maximum sentence based on basically nothing. But fundamentally, ita about free speech and this particular case and you and obviously have very different views about where to stifle that fundamental right.

[Mattshark]

Of course I'm serious. There is no reason for 'go and suck a n***** d***' to be criminal imo. And even if there is, you can't keep ignoring the incitement bit. Where is it?

"That is what the maximum allowable sentence is for the offence he committed and pleaded guilty too "
So considering the case, he could have got the maximum sentence? Really?

The language can be in its self inciting, depending on who it was said too and what it is was in reply to etc.

Yes, if the judge was so inclined, he was tried on two accounts too.

[Kenneth]

The language can be in its self inciting, depending on who it was said too and what it is was in reply to etc.

Yes, if the judge was so inclined, he was tried on two accounts too.

indeed, but he said it, and used particular words. What did they incite?

and the second point is laughable, as if there are no sentencing guidelines. (remembered this time.)

[Mattshark]

indeed, but he said it, and used particular words. What did they incite?

and the second point is laughable, as if there are no sentencing guidelines. (remembered this time.)

What was it in reply too and who was it in reply too? Additionally it is racist material put into a public domain, which will probably have affected the prosecution (and yes twitter is public space).

Yes, it is still up to the judge and he could have given a more severe sentence than he did. Sorry you can't see that.

[ChesterDave]

Ok, Voyeurism is a low level offence, a lower level offence the inciting racial hatred. Probably would have been longer if he had been filming someone other than himself.

The second specifically goes into why there was no jail sentence and the judge said in normal circumstance their would.

Third one would be a reduced sentence due to the money being returned to the victim prior to the case.[/QUOTE]

Such a low level offence that he has to sign the sex offenders register for five years.

The second one doesnt at all go into why there was no jail sentence. Sentencing is defered until August this year, but she will get a suspended jail sentence depending on how much money she pays back which is a ****ing stupidly laughable concept. Steal, dont get caught no problem. Steal, get caught give back, no jail. Abusive language on the net, jail.

The third. Same as the second. He nicked it, got caught. Returning it does not mitigate he was guilty of fraud/theft.

I think you are really failing to understand this. He could have actually got 7 years (As said by the CPS) btw. And insulting people is not legal, whether you like or not it can cause serve damage to peoples lives, even if you don't view in such a manner. This is not a civil case, it is down to semantics. It is a criminal case, the law was either broken or not, the man admitted to the offence he was tried for, he could have gotten worse.

I'm not misunderstanding anything. He was convicted on inciting racial hatred after admitting the offence. YOU keep talking about the harrassment of others who he abused when they contacted him. There was no racial element to that. Yet you keep going on about these other offences. If it is an offence to abuse anyone then we all risk jail.

Patrice Evra is a ****ing cunt. A stupid ****ing whinging mutineering cunt. Collymore is cowardly ****ing wife beater. Should I now be jailed?

[Kenneth]

Could have got 7 years... if the case was significantly different or the judge ignored sentencing guidelines. He really is a lucky lad then. Escaped by the skin of his teeth.

[Mattshark]

Such a low level offence that he has to sign the sex offenders register for five years.

The second one doesnt at all go into why there was no jail sentence. Sentencing is defered until August this year, but she will get a suspended jail sentence depending on how much money she pays back which is a ****ing stupidly laughable concept. Steal, dont get caught no problem. Steal, get caught give back, no jail. Abusive language on the net, jail.

The third. Same as the second. He nicked it, got caught. Returning it does not mitigate he was guilty of fraud/theft.

Register is a different thing.

Actually you just explained it

Yes, but it affects sentencing.

I'm not misunderstanding anything. He was convicted on inciting racial hatred after admitting the offence. YOU keep talking about the harrassment of others who he abused when they contacted him. There was no racial element to that. Yet you keep going on about these other offences. If it is an offence to abuse anyone then we all risk jail.

Patrice Evra is a ****ing cunt. A stupid ****ing whinging mutineering cunt. Collymore is cowardly ****ing wife beater. Should I now be jailed?

I said he could have been tried on other offences. Depending on what you say you can, depending how you say it you can. Assault can be verbal as well as physical (contact in fact makes it battery).

Don't be facetious.

[Mattshark]

Could have got 7 years... if the case was significantly different or the judge ignored sentencing guidelines. He really is a lucky lad then. Escaped by the skin of his teeth.

Indeed, I said he could have, not that he should have or would have.

[Kenneth]

Seriously Matt, read this and tell me how he was found guilty.

http://www.cps.gov.uk/publications/prosecution/rrpbcrpol.html#a09

"For an offence to be committed under any of these sections of the Public Order Act 1986, there has to be one of the acts described therein: it has to be "threatening, abusive or insulting", and it has to be intended to or likely in all the circumstances to stir up racial hatred". "

"The prosecution must prove that hatred was intended to be stirred up or that it was likely to be stirred up. 'Likely' does not mean that racial hatred was simply possible. "

First condition, fair enough. Second, no way imo.

"Prosecutors should also make sure that they are aware of the guideline cases to assist the court in sentencing, in particular R. v Kelly & Donnelly [2001] CLR 411 which adopted the majority of recommendations made to the Court of Appeal by the Sentencing Advisory Panel Advice No 4.

The Court of Appeal endorsed the following approach:
the court should first decide on the appropriate sentence without the element of racial or religious aggravation, but including any other aggravating or mitigating features;
the sentence should then be enhanced to take account of the racial or religious aggravation;
if the offence itself merits custody, that sentence should be enhanced by an appropriate amount to reflect the degree of racial or religious aggravation;"

Now if I am reading this right, the racial element shouldn't be determining whether a custodial sentence is appropriate, rather the length of it.

[ChesterDave]

Actually you did say there is a list of offences he is guilty of http://www.est1892.co.uk/forums/show...&postcount=178

Irrespective of what he could have been charged with the judges view that an immediate jail sentence is the only option is ridiculous.

With a criminal record and prison sentence he is now practically unemployable in the current climate. Justice should be about benefiting society as well as punishing people and teching them the error of their behaviour.

If it has to be a criminal offence then a community sentence, or even a conditional discharge with a ban on owning or using technologies that can access the Internet would be far more sensible for such a low level variation of the offence - more than those that we have seen for those holding banners declaring those who oppose Islam should be beheaded, and if memory serves me correctly, longer than the guy who threw the pigs heds into the grounds of a Mosque.

I'd be willing to bet his guilty plea to inciting racism was probably more to do with being advised it will likely be a slap on the wrist more than he is genuinely admitting he was encouraging others to hate somebody solely for their race.

[lfcred]

seen his pic today on twitter which is a great sign! looks like he is making improvements!!

[Mattshark]

Actually you did say there is a list of offences he is guilty of http://www.est1892.co.uk/forums/show...&postcount=178

Irrespective of what he could have been charged with the judges view that an immediate jail sentence is the only option is ridiculous.

With a criminal record and prison sentence he is now practically unemployable in the current climate. Justice should be about benefiting society as well as punishing people and teching them the error of their behaviour.

If it has to be a criminal offence then a community sentence, or even a conditional discharge with a ban on owning or using technologies that can access the Internet would be far more sensible for such a low level variation of the offence - more than those that we have seen for those holding banners declaring those who oppose Islam should be beheaded, and if memory serves me correctly, longer than the guy who threw the pigs heds into the grounds of a Mosque.

I'd be willing to bet his guilty plea to inciting racism was probably more to do with being advised it will likely be a slap on the wrist more than he is genuinely admitting he was encouraging others to hate somebody solely for their race.

Well he is clearly guilty of them, whether he was charged with them is another matter, I never said he was charged with them, I said he was probably charged with more than one offence.

Almost certainly he was told to plead guilty, but you would have also assumed that in that he was not likely to win his case as well.

[Mattshark]

Seriously Matt, read this and tell me how he was found guilty.

http://www.cps.gov.uk/publications/prosecution/rrpbcrpol.html#a09

"For an offence to be committed under any of these sections of the Public Order Act 1986, there has to be one of the acts described therein: it has to be "threatening, abusive or insulting", and it has to be intended to or likely in all the circumstances to stir up racial hatred". "

"The prosecution must prove that hatred was intended to be stirred up or that it was likely to be stirred up. 'Likely' does not mean that racial hatred was simply possible. "

First condition, fair enough. Second, no way imo.

"Prosecutors should also make sure that they are aware of the guideline cases to assist the court in sentencing, in particular R. v Kelly & Donnelly [2001] CLR 411 which adopted the majority of recommendations made to the Court of Appeal by the Sentencing Advisory Panel Advice No 4.

The Court of Appeal endorsed the following approach:
the court should first decide on the appropriate sentence without the element of racial or religious aggravation, but including any other aggravating or mitigating features;
the sentence should then be enhanced to take account of the racial or religious aggravation;
if the offence itself merits custody, that sentence should be enhanced by an appropriate amount to reflect the degree of racial or religious aggravation;"

Now if I am reading this right, the racial element shouldn't be determining whether a custodial sentence is appropriate, rather the length of it.

He pleaded guilty to it, I presume the prosecution had some case made, the CPS doesn't prosecute at will. But it is not as if the prosecution actually had to make a case in court.