Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

UK Men Get 4 Years For Trying to Incite Riots Via Facebook

Posted by samzenpus on from the do-not-pass-go dept.

An anonymous reader writes "In addition to the 12 arrests from last week, a judge has sentenced 20-year-old Jordan Blackshaw and 22-year-old Perry Sutcliffe-Keenan to four years in prison for their failed attempts to use Facebook to incite riots in the UK. The judge said he hoped the sentences would act as a deterrent. The two men were convicted for using Facebook to encourage violent disorder in their hometowns in northwest England."

17 of 400 comments (clear)

  1. No sense at all by AvderTheTerrible · · Score: 3, Insightful

    If you are going to make an example of someone, make an example of someone who actually succeeded in using social networking to incite violence and cause damage. These two were just some drunken idiots who thought the riots were cool and wanted to bring them to their town while in a state of inebriation. Fine the hell out of them and make them do some work for the community, no need to take four years of their lives away for something they failed utterly at.

    1. Re:No sense at all by interkin3tic · · Score: 3, Insightful

      What's up with the apparent urge by the British government to "make an example" out of people? Is it that their voters are angry the riots happened and want blood? Is there a legitimate fear that riots could happen again any time soon? Or is it simply an opportunity for them to look like they are tough on crime, vote for me and we'll protect you from those terrible (fill in the blank with whatever you have an irrational fear of)?

    2. Re:No sense at all by huiwe · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The voters have been told in rolling news that they should be angry and focus on that. So they probably are. The surprise is the rush to provide all the power the police needs to counter the terrorist threat had provisions that the government still couldn't get into law. This new threat should remedy that. All it took was for the police to literally standby and do nothing, not even using the powers they already had.

    3. Re:No sense at all by Mushdot · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Blackshaw created a Facebook event entitled 'Smash d[o]wn in Northwich Town' for August 8 but only the police showed up, and arrested him.

      He deserved four years for his piss poor organisation.

      On a serious note, I think that Blackshaw should perhaps have got two years max (he did create a page which tried to encourage rioting in his home town), but the other bloke perhaps six months for being a drunken dick(he took his page down as soon as he woke up sober.)

      However as others have commented I'm sure the sentences will be reduced on appeal once the country has calmed down.

    4. Re:No sense at all by Ed+Black · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The voters have been told in rolling news that they should be angry and focus on that..

      How rude and insulting. The voters must be stupid, right?

      No. The voters *experienced* the riots and are livid that members of their own communities would betray their own in such a nihilistic orgy of crime costing lives, injuries, homes, at least hundreds of jobs (of people/families in their own communities, not of the banks or politicians) and costing millions upon millions of pounds when the country is facing austerity measures, for entertainment and to put a flat screen tv and an xbox in their front room.

      "Told they should be angry". Perhaps if you were injured, or your workplace* and/or home** was burned down, or your community had lots of people hurt, homeless and jobless and was looking down the barrel of rebuilding the town when it was facing cuts in every public service, you might think it warranted a serious deterrent for or at least removal of rioters, for however long is appropriate under the law.

      Even if they aren't "mindless zombies controlled by the press".

      Perhaps if it was YOU looking at your wrecked community or even life, you might think a little pause for thought was warranted before people labelled you malleable and stupid.

      *Lots of places can't afford good insurance now btw
      **Nobody can afford home insurance in the kind of deprived areas where homes were burnt down.

    5. Re:No sense at all by gmccloskey · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I think you are confusing some of the political unrest from the 80s with the self-serving mindless violence of recent weeks.
      It is absolutely true to say that government cuts are affecting national and local funding for all citizens, and they are affecting deprived areas. However, these cuts have only come in to effect fully from April this year. The unemployment and illiteracy have been at those levels for a long time, including during the boom years of 1995-2005, and during the previous Labour administration. It is illogical to say that the currently limited impacts of the austerity measures are giving people cause to riot. If you look at the actual activity during the riots, it didn't include political protest, marches, speeches or any other normal signs of protest by ordinary people. It did include a relatively large number of groups causing criminal damage, violence and commiting flagrant acts of theft - typically of high value goods and big name brands. This was theft on a large scale, enabled by breakdown in normal social barriers.
      The government is planning to reduce both front and back office police numbers, however these cuts have not taken place yet to any extent. Police numbers are at almost record levels. The police didn't retreat to protect stations, they deployed in the areas that they thought needed protection. However the mobile hoards, enabled by SMS and social networks, just moved to new sites, typically after a short skirmish. In short, asymmetric confrontation and overwhelming numbers. Once the scale of the problem was understood (a d a few politicians returned from holiday) they brought in an extra 16000 police for London alone - an increase of approximately 25% on the normal force. This managed to suppress most of the activity.
      There are currently reportedly over 1000 people arrested, and the MPS have suggested that possibly another 2000 will be, once the CCTV and other evidence is analysed. This is hardly tiny by any one's measure.
      As for brutal policing, the MPS have been negatively criticised for not being tough enough in the first few days, and they adjusted their tactics subsequently. They have not however used plastic bullets, water cannon, tear gas or any other large scale crowd suppression measures. This is not brutal. If you want to see 'firm' policing, ask the French.
      As for fixing problems on the ground, the previous administration spent 10s of billions over more than a decade on enhanced social benefits and programmes for the disadvantaged. While it has doubtless helped many, it has also raised a generation that expects to live off the state, spurn education and employment, contribute nothing in return except vocal occasionally violent protest about how they are not provided enough.

  2. Re:Overturned on appeal, most likely. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Half agree, half disagree.

    Incitement, aiding and abetting, attempted etc. tend to incur the same standard as the crime itself. (Indeed in terms of such disorder it's often those quietly encouraging others who perpetuate the whole thing). So they should get similar sentences to those actively participating in the riots, if you increase those to 4 years, then these sentences are fine, if on the other hand they're all getting fines and suspended sentences then these are excessive.

  3. Re:It's a crime to attempt a crime, or incite othe by gnasher719 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Where is the limit with political speech ? Is that forbidden to state the opinion that violent action is the only way to bring change in a corrupt system ? Not that I defend this opinion, but the fact that is is censored disturbs me deeply.

    I'll use my right of free speech and call you a bloody idiot. This wasn't to "bring change in a corrupt system", this was about having a bit of fun destroying stuff, beating up people, and looting.

  4. Re:Overturned on appeal, most likely. by DurendalMac · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I think they should be punished, but they didn't actually smash in storefronts, burn down buildings, or throw bricks at cops. I think the end result of the actions should definitely have a bearing on the length of the sentence.

  5. Re:It's a crime to attempt a crime, or incite othe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Where is the limit with political speech ? Is that forbidden to state the opinion that violent action is the only way to bring change in a corrupt system ? Not that I defend this opinion, but the fact that is is censored disturbs me deeply.

    The limit is in both impact and the success. There shouldn't be a limit on your speech as long as you are nonviolent and not forcing yourself upon others. If you are willing to become violent to make your point, you had better be ready to take it all the way *and win*. See American Revolution (violent, yet successful) vs. current situation in Syria (violent, yet getting mowed down in the streets).

    As far as "this is censored" goes... I call bullshit. One of the few things that government is actually supposed to do is to protect its law-abiding citizens from real dangers - most tangibly represented as foreign armies and violent thugs. Physical security is among the most basic responsibilities of a government. The rioting kids are fortunate to be alive at the same time as the most convenient and far-reaching communications breakthroughs in human history. The government isn't telling them they can't have a voice, the government is telling them they can't smash up poor shopkeeps' storefronts to make their point.

  6. Re:It will get reduced, however . . . by FireFury03 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It just goes to show that even on the internet you can get in big trouble. A lot of people are learning that you can't get away with "everything" on the internet anymore. I'm surprised these people actually used their name. Haven't they heard of the people that have gotten fired for posting things about their job from there?

    I'd suggest that these people (and most of the other people involved in the riots) aren't exactly the sharpest tools in the box...

    --
    http://blog.nexusuk.org
  7. Others crimes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The judge said he hoped the sentences would act as a deterrent.

    This could be a pretty big problem.

    The Judge himself is pretty much saying here that he considers the punishment to be excessive compared to the crime but that Jordan Blackshaw and Perry Sutcliffe-Keenan should be punished more because the legal system doesn't want to bother with the rest of the criminals.
    Well, it is not exactly his wording and it might not be that way in this particular case but I have seen that kind of reasoning in other cases and I seriously doubt that the two boys even would have been arrested if it weren't for a lot of other people running around causing trouble in the UK at the moment.

    Compare to the average file sharing case where the plaintiff is punished because he could potentially have distributed a work to 10000 other people.
    In those cases it is assumed that the plaintiff has distributed the work to 10 other people and that he should take the punishement for the crimes that those other 10 people did. (Not that it clears them from any legal action in the future.)

  8. Re:Is this pretty much because.. by BasilBrush · · Score: 4, Insightful

    No they probably won't catch most. There were an awful lot of rioters and looters. But they have arrested nearly 3000 people with 1300 having been in front of the courts so far. And they'll be continuing to track them down for weeks or months to come. So it's not that they don't have people who actually rioted/looted that they can make examples of.

    The motivation is obvious. They don't want anyone else to incite a riot. Deterrence being one of the 3 justifications for punishment, and the most important one in this case.

  9. Re:It's a crime to attempt a crime, or incite othe by Zouden · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Oh come on.

    How exactly would civil unrest against a perceived corrupt political system manifest?

    With a political message and marches in the streets, not blatant theft of consumer goods. To illustrate:

    This is a political riot.
    This is people stealing things because they want to.

    The guys in this article started facebook pages called "Smash dwn in Northwich Town" (sic) and "The Warrington Riots". There is nothing political about what went on in the UK.

    When you have massive riots in multiple cities, I'd be hard pressed to consider it just reckless lawlessness as entertainment.

    Welcome to British youth culture.

    --
    "A week in the lab saves an hour in the library"
  10. The judge is an idiot by he-sk · · Score: 4, Insightful

    First of all, research has shown again and again that harsh penalties simply do not work as a deterrent to other offenders.

    Secondly, does the judge expect that another riot is around the corner? Who is he trying to deter?

    I expect the sentence to be reduced on appeal.

    --
    Free Manning, jail Obama.
  11. Re:It's a crime to attempt a crime, or incite othe by Richard_at_work · · Score: 3, Insightful

    As a British Subject, I'd love to see actual examples of an ASBO being issued for criticism of the government...

    Because it's something I've never heard of.

  12. Re:It's a crime to attempt a crime, or incite othe by Nursie · · Score: 3, Insightful

    There is a difference between demonstrating people who want political change in a non-democratic country, and people who go on a looting rampage in one of the richest democracies in the world.

    I do not think that the rioters were trying to achieve change. I have yet to see anything other than people taking stuff and destroying things because they thought they could. Why it seemed like a good idea is something to look into.

    It's not even a basic level of morality that's required, a political protest requires at the very least some sort of aim (other than acquisition), wouldn't you say?