Well, that went well didn’t it?

[motorbiking]

Armed robbers pose a specific threat to a specific person / groups of people, at a specific point in time.

"Posting stupid racist inflammatory hate comments" has - demonstrably - had far wider reach, and far greater consequences, for far greater numbers of people.

I'm not arguing whether one group be more harshly treated than the other or not; just giving an alternative view on how the relative severities can be differently viewed.

A happens
B happens

it does not mean A caused B.

"Armed robbers pose a specific threat to a specific person / groups of people, at a specific point in time."

Any person they wish to rob, any time they wish to rob them, you mean?

You understand Robbery, is the use of force, violence etc. These are not shop lifters or burglars.

 

[Brigadier]

A happens
B happens

it does not mean A caused B.

"Armed robbers pose a specific threat to a specific person / groups of people, at a specific point in time."

Any person they wish to rob, any time they wish to rob them, you mean?

You understand Robbery, is the use of force, violence etc. These are not shop lifters or burglars.

I was very clear in my post.

Does my response not suit you?

Is that why you feel the need to create a diversion?

 

[ajohn]

Plenty of armed robbers get lower sentences than stupid Karen's ranting on Twitter.

But it seems that has it's own set of rules. Social media is a known problem area in all sorts of ways. A new crime appears. Sentencing etc will have been considered.

One that was only reported on Midlands news was hit with a charge of broadcasting - a riot I assume. Maybe the reporter got the charge wrong. Maybe he didn't. This sort of thing could encourage others to join in a riot or ones in other areas.

Silly spur of the moment rants. Well some have been extreme. Just how well do they reflect these peoples views on the subject. Was it jocular - even worse in some ways. Where do you draw the line when the basic aim is to prevent people from making similar or even worse comments.

 

[carmanmemoranda]

A happens
B happens

it does not mean A caused B.

"Armed robbers pose a specific threat to a specific person / groups of people, at a specific point in time."

Any person they wish to rob, any time they wish to rob them, you mean?

You understand Robbery, is the use of force, violence etc. These are not shop lifters or burglars.

Any instances of guidelines or laws not being followed?

 

[motorbiking]

I was very clear in my post.

Does my response not suit you?

Is that why you feel the need to create a diversion?

Only in your own head.

 

[noseall]

Is that why you feel the need to create a diversion?

Standard MO for MBK, when he gets scared of a question, response or post.

 

[blup]

Being stupid and being a Karen aren't offences in themselves, nor, it seems, is saying I hate someone because of tne colour of their skin. The cases prosecuted, very specifically involve misinformation about the background of the Southport killer, and/or encouraged those rioting. For once our justice system got its act together and nipped things in the bud. Similar initiatives over the years for knife crime (MBK’s armed robbery) haven't worked suggesting its a more complex problem, or sentencing needs looking at again.

 

[motorbiking]

No, the example you gave would fit s18 of the public order act. if you did it constantly, it would be a category 1 offence. Further if someone was say a moderator of a forum and was on a mission to constantly post such content, this could increase their culpability.

 

[ajohn]

No, the example you gave would fit s18 of the public order act. if you did it constantly,

Blah
The sentancing isn't up to you is it and will have been down to some rules. That's how the system works

 

[motorbiking]

You seem completely confused. There is the offence and once convicted there is the sentence.

The bar for s18 is not particularly high, many posters on this forum tread close and some occasionally cross the line. If they turned out to be trusted moderators, the net can be cast wider and the sentence more severe.

 

[ajohn]

You seem completely confused. There is the offence and once convicted there is the sentence.

No I am not. Some have been convicted of online offences and judges have set the sentences. End of - it's how the system works. There is no point on that basis with comparing with other crimes. It is as it is.

 

[noseall]

You seem completely confused. There is the offence and once convicted there is the sentence.

The bar for s18 is not particularly high, many posters on this forum tread close and some occasionally cross the line. If they turned out to be trusted moderators, the net can be cast wider and the sentence more severe.

So everyone guilty of say a s18 offence receives exactly the same punishment? Or is that down to the discretion of the Judge?

 

[motorbiking]

I posted the sentencing guidelines, do you need a link?

 

[motorbiking]

No I am not. Some have been convicted of online offences and judges have set the sentences. End of - it's how the system works. There is no point on that basis with comparing with other crimes. It is as it is.

Of course there is, the punishment has to fit the crime.

 

[noseall]

So everyone guilty of say a s18 offence receives exactly the same punishment? Or is that down to the discretion of the Judge?

I guess MBK doesn't have an answer, so he fluffs out the forum with more of his irrelevant waffle.