Facebook rioters appeal turned down

Lengthy prison sentences imposed on youths who used Facebook to incite riots and on offenders who took part in looting have been upheld by the court of appeal.  The Guardian, 19/10/2011.

Further into the report we find  a clear warning from the establishment with respect to the use of digital  technologies and the reaction of the courts should they regard the use thereof to  be inappropriate. Blackshaw and Sutcliffe-Keenan, who were deemed to have used Facebook to incite riots, had their four year sentences upheld.

"When dealing with these two appeals, we are conscious that in the end no actual harm in the streets of Northwich and Warrington actually occurred." But, added his Lordship,  "decent citizens" were appalled by what they read.

The judge noted that the abuse of modern technology for criminal purposes extends to and includes incitement of very many people by a single step. He noted that there was a "sinister aspect of these cases, where modern technology almost certainly assisted rioters in other places to organise the rapid movement and congregation of disorderly groups in new and unpoliced areas."

The article points out that Lord Judge has repeatedly commented on what he sees as the threat of  "misuse of modern technology". These have included the use of Twitter to defy superinjunctions and "peddle lies", and his concern that the jury system was in danger of being undermined through "misuse of the internet" by jurors to research cases or communicate on social media sites.

It would have been useful for His Lordship to provide a clearer indication of what he means by "decent citizens". Are they people who share his world view? Could it include those who see our world differently, such as those currently demonstrating against corporate greed, corrupt politicians, priviledge and the fat cat salaries and pensions enjoyed by the rich and famous and those in positions of power? 

According to Gary Slapper, there seems to be a distinct difference between sentencing for the rich and the poor. In today's Law Central blog post  (The Times, 18/10/2011) the blogger points out that "large scale corporate crime can steal pensions from tens of thousands of people, misappropriate the life savings of the equivalent of a large town, cause many people to be killed in industrial and passenger incidents... Yet these crimes rarely result in convictions, and even when they do, rarely result in anything but mild punishment."  We have further examples of this in the sentencing of MPs involved in defrauding the public purse with fraudulent allowance claims. Those jailed had sentences far less severe than Blackshaw and Sutcliffe-Keenan, who actually caused no harm. Edward Morley, who stole at least £31000, was sentenced to 16 months, and released after only four. Lord Taylor and Lord  Hanningfield were given similar early releases. If ever there was a need for stiff sentences to deter others, I would suggest these cynical and deliberate incidents of fraud by those who should be leading by example.

In terms of abuse of technology, A point often overlooked and perhaps even more sinister, is the abuse of technology by government, which uses surveillance technologies to record our daily movements and to infringe our privacy by recording our telephone conversations and messages. These are currently justified by anti-terrorism laws, but are consistently abused by police who film protesters exercising their legal right to dissent and by local councils who have used them to spy on ordinary citizens who they believe might be living in a postal area other than that claimed.

It would be very interesting to see whether Their Lordships would regard this as a sinister abuse of technology were cases covering these issues to come before them.

Methinks we have far too many laws and not nearly enough justice.

Harwood to face charges

It is good to see that Harwood will face charges. Hopefully, the wide covererage of this case will overcome the stubborn reluctance of juries to find policemen guilty, whatever the circumstances.

Tomlinson killing... no charges

An officer who was filmed apparently pushing a man to the ground during the G20 protests will not face charges over his death. BBC News.

No surprises here. While bent coppers are likely to be successfully prosecuted (Ali Dazaei), none, to my knowledge, involved in Gestapo activities on behalf of government have been touched. Nor are they ever likely to be.

 : Video of April 1 attack on Ian Tomlonson : CPS Statement :

Update on Thursday, July 22, 2010 at 05:43PM by Inyoka

Explanation:

Today the CPS said it could not bring a manslaughter charge because the conflicting medical evidence meant prosecutors "would simply not be able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that there was a causal link between Mr Tomlinson's death and the alleged assault on him".

It said it could not bring a charge for criminal assault because too much time had elapsed: a charge must be brought within six months. The CPS also ruled out bringing charges of actual bodily harm, and misconduct in public office.

 The Guardian.

Key issues:

1. Deliberate time wasting?

The Tomlinson family have criticised the time it took the CPS to reach its decision.

The first investigation was conducted by the IPCC. Its officials are understood to have reached a clear view as to whether enough evidence existed to support criminal charges.  They were able to complete their inquiries in just four months and submitted a file to the CPS by August. The IPCC itself was late in mounting an inquiry, claiming there was nothing suspicious about the death for almost a week until the release of footage of the incident obtained by the Guardian forced a U-turn.

CPS officials had assured the family they would decide on whether to prosecute the officer – and on what charge – by Christmas 2009.

The CPS has given various explanations for the delays, and claims it has had to return to the IPCC for clarification several times on different issues.

2. Incompetent officials?

Patel, who carried out the first post-mortem, is facing the General Medical Council accused of giving questionable verdicts on four causes of deaths, several of which later turned out to be suspicious.

3. A neatly orchestrated waste of public money to ensure that no prosecution takes place?

While the IPCC website claims that "The IPCC is independent, making its decisions entirely independently of the police, government and complainants" one has to wonder just how 'independent' it can be given that the members are appointed by the Home Secretary.

Under IPCC values is this little gem:

Justice must be sure and proportionate. People who never make mistakes, never make anything. We discourage a blame culture amongst the police where even appropriate and carefully managed risks are avoided. "What can we learn?" is often a more useful question than "Who is to blame?"

What can we learn - The government and the police cannot be trusted to ensure the justice is provided. 

Who is to blame -  Why bother to ask?  Finding this out is clearly not a priority.

The IPCCs response to the decision not to prosecute. I am not a member of the Tomlinson family, but even I am spitting mad at what seems to yet another whitewash to ensure that the Gestapo are fully protected.

Update on Friday, July 23, 2010 at 07:39AM by Inyoka

Verbatim excerpts from The Guardian.

The Crown Prosecution Service's view clashes with that of an investigation by the Independent Police Complaints Commission. The Guardian has learned the IPCC concluded there was sufficient evidence to charge the officer with manslaughter, and told Tomlinson's family so.

The first postmortem by Dr Freddy Patel endorsed the police's version of events, ruling that he died from a heart attack.

But a direct challenge to the CPS also emerged last night from Dr Nat Cary, the second forensic pathologist who examined Tomlinson's body. He told the Guardian prosecutors made a factual error in dismissing a charge of actual bodily harm.

He said his report contained clear evidence that Tomlinson suffered injuries sufficient to support an ABHcharge. The CPS dismissed the injuries as "relatively minor" and thus not enough to support a charge of ABH in its written reasons given to the family.

Cary, speaking for the first time about the case, said: "I'm quite happy to challenge that. The injuries were not relatively minor. He sustained quite a large area of bruising. Such injuries are consistent with a baton strike, which could amount to ABH. It's extraordinary. If that's not ABH I would like to know what is."

The Tomlinsons' solicitor, Jules Carey, said the decision was disgraceful and said an inquiry must examine if it was due to a "lack of will or incompetence".

Cameron's true colours...

Speaking during Prime Minister's Question Time, Mr Cameron said: "It is absolutely clear that Raoul Moat was a callous murderer, full stop, end of story. I cannot understand any wave, however small, of public sympathy for this man." BBC News.

Not sure who DC is trying to impress here, but he should rarther keep his big trap shut. This kind of arrogant posturing will simply piss people off.

While the case might be driven as an open and shut one by the police, there are sure to be a great number of issues about what drove Moat to the extremes that he allegedly went to, as well as questions of exactly what happened at the scene.  Many people in this country are leary of the police, given the incompetence, thuggery and cover ups we have seen recently. These include the incompetence which led to the callous slaughter of de Menezes (nicely covered up, promotions all round), the unncessary violence which led to the death of Ian Tomlinson, the violent assault on Nicola Fisher by Delroy Smellie (another dubious cover up), the murder of Blair Peach, incompetence of this sort (the most basic rule when carrying a weapon is never to point it someone unless there is a dire need to fire it. However, I can just about guarantee that the Plod involved will be cleared). This kind of cynical manipulation of the law does not help either.

I don't trust goverment (Labour, Tory, whoever) and I don't trust the Gestapo thugs who keep government in power.

Update on Thursday, July 15, 2010 at 12:20PM by Inyoka

Moat requested psychiatric / psychological help.

"Why don't we just have a psychiatrist sit me down and say 'Right OK, I want to see you regularly, then we can move towards where your areas of fault are, we can enhance on these areas you know, and work with us'.

"If I'm at fault myself in any way, I'm open to all kinds of suggestions, but I refuse to spend the rest of my time fighting with social services."

Headteacher, Lewisham - £200k +? Look at the figures...

The £200,000 pay package of a primary school head teacher in south London has sparked outrage from trade unions. BBC News.

Typically misleading headlines from the Beeb. Elms is on a basic salary of £82714 but recieved £100,000 extra for work on the City Challenge programme (introduced by Labour) to tackle underachievement in disadvantaged areas. Of this, £51,957 of which was back-dated pay for 2008/09. He  also got £10,000 in overtime for 2009-10, and a further £9,317 for overtime in 2008/09. An Ofsted report described the head teacher's leadership as "outstanding".

This being the case, well deserved especially in light of the massive salaries others - including union leaders, the ones bleating the most over this case - receive for far less challenging work. However, I am surprised to see him getting overtime. His staff certainly do not.

As to the claim by GMB public services officer Ted Purcell that a head teacher in a local community school should not earn more money than the prime minister, I disagree. Gordon Brown was so shite he should have paid the public for putting up with him. I think teachers contribute far more to society that any politician, be they from the Commons or the Lords.  In my not so humble opinion, no MP should earn more than a teacher. MPs do less, except when it comes to filling their own pockets as the recent allowances scandal clearly indicates.

Update on Tuesday, July 13, 2010 at 02:35PM by Inyoka

What is it about Education that it always gets a  zhwarrah at the top? In my not so humble opinion, of course.

14/7/2010.

Follow up article by Darryl Chamberlain (The Guardian)

15/7/2010.

Follow up by Michele Hanson (The Guardian)