Southport Stabbing

Forums New posts
Nick said:
Because part of his crime was spreading misinformation....

It is comparing other crimes with similar sentences when asked if it was a fair sentence, of course other cases and crimes will be mentioned.
Click to expand...
Was it? He was convicted of encouraging violent disorder and criminal damage, he wasn't sent down for "misinformation".
 
SBT said:
Was it? He was convicted of encouraging violent disorder and criminal damage, he wasn't sent down for "misinformation".
Click to expand...

Sentencing him, Judge Neil Flewitt KC said the defendant was 'prominent' among people responsible for spreading misinformation following the Southport attack.
Click to expand...
 
Nick said:
To be fair, he should have done it in the name of Islam and encouraged people to carry out terror offences and he would have got less:

www.counterterrorism.police.uk

Birmingham Daesh supporter convicted of terror offences following friend's prison sentence | Counter Terrorism Policing

A 19-year-old man from Birmingham has today been found guilty of terrorism offences following a trial at Birmingham Crown Court.
www.counterterrorism.police.uk www.counterterrorism.police.uk
Click to expand...
Maybe
I’m content that strong and quick action is necessary to ensure rioting is quelled but as I say I’m deeply uncomfortable with words leading to prison (there’s obvious exceptions) and also shaken baby convictions and victims word against alleged perpetrators in historic sex cases
Not where it’s lots of victims but when it’s one word against another as I think long term memory is deeply flawed
 
Nick said:
Well yeah, it's part of what the crime was in trying to stir things up ...
Click to expand...
This is nonsense - everything that is "part of" a crime isn't a crime in itself.

I assume you're suggesting Hope Not Hate should be prosecuted for spreading misinformation - good luck proving that they were encouraging violent disorder and criminal damage.
 
SBT said:
This is nonsense - everything that is "part of" a crime isn't a crime in itself.

I assume you're suggesting Hope Not Hate should be prosecuted for spreading misinformation - good luck proving that they were encouraging violent disorder and criminal damage.
Click to expand...

They don't need to be, the spreading misinformation part is enough to at least start off with an arrest.

Falsely posting that a Muslim woman had been the victim of an acid attack, wasn't it?
 
  • Haha
Reactions: SBT
Nick said:
They don't need to be, the spreading misinformation part is enough to at least start off with an arrest.
Click to expand...
Do you ever get tired running all this interference and whataboutism any time someone gets convicted after attending or organising a far-right racist protest?
 
SBT said:
Do you ever get tired running all this interference and whataboutism any time someone gets convicted after attending or organising a far-right racist protest?
Click to expand...

"Running all this interference" 🤣🤣

You asked if I thought his prison sentence was fair, you got an answer with other crimes that got the same or less.

I clearly said he deserved prison but wasn't sure about the length of sentence.
 
Nick said:
"Running all this interference" 🤣🤣

You asked if I thought his prison sentence was fair, you got an answer with other crimes that got the same or less.

I clearly said he deserved prison but wasn't sure about the length of sentence.
Click to expand...
Yes - "whataboutism" in other words

Your consistency in standing up for him, and those who share his views, is well noted
 
SBT said:
Yes - "whataboutism" in other words

Your consistency in standing up for him, and those who share his views, is well noted
Click to expand...

Saying I think the prison sentence is probably too large but he did deserve prison for it, isn't standing up for him. Especially when you directly asked.
 
SBT said:
This is nonsense - everything that is "part of" a crime isn't a crime in itself.

I assume you're suggesting Hope Not Hate should be prosecuted for spreading misinformation - good luck proving that they were encouraging violent disorder and criminal damage.
Click to expand...
In fairness they arguably did encourage the mob to mentality to protect when they said the far right grouping in Birmingham. If you remember it was outside that pub and the idiot that came out got beaten up by herd mentality. Surely their actions incited that in the same way this guy suggesting mobbing up outside the hotel.
 
rob9872 said:
In fairness they arguably did encourage the mob to mentality to protect when they said the far right grouping in Birmingham. If you remember it was outside that pub and the idiot that came out got beaten up by herd mentality. Surely their actions incited that in the same way this guy suggesting mobbing up outside the hotel.
Click to expand...
You would have to prove that Hope Not Hate deliberately spread misinformation with the intention of creating violent disorder - no-one could argue that with a straight face.
 
You can't easily compare offences and sentences anecdotally Nick based on simple reports in crappy rags... have you knowledge or experience of the Britch legal system? Have you read the statements or proof's of evidence in any of these cases? The context of inciting national riots and civil unrest causing physical harm to the police and emergency services at the time significantly raises the bar of sentences automatically. I think this is correct and would like to think Conservative & Unionist would have taken same stance. That said there are some shitty judges out there that perhaps the Conservative & Unionist party should have reviewed at during their 14 years in power, if they could have been ar$ed? Of course anyone involved in serious crimes like terror/abuse etc. deserves significant time in jail, but perhaps if the Conservative & Unionist party had invested properly in prisons then maybe some of the 'random' cases you highlight (mostly ethnically related) might have got longer sentences - for me this might have also included the serious crimes of Horizon chief executives and Michelle Mone/Doug Barrowman.
 
SBT said:
You would have to prove that Hope Not Hate deliberately spread misinformation with the intention of creating violent disorder - no-one could argue that with a straight face.
Click to expand...
I bet I could, Im a member of the Labour party. From top to bottom, we can argue anything with a straight face.
 
SkyBlueCharlie9 said:
You can't easily compare offences and sentences anecdotally Nick based on simple reports in crappy rags... have you knowledge or experience of the Britch legal system? Have you read the statements or proof's of evidence in any of these cases? The context of inciting national riots and civil unrest causing physical harm to the police and emergency services at the time significantly raises the bar of sentences automatically. I think this is correct and would like to think Conservative & Unionist would have taken same stance. That said there are some shitty judges out there that perhaps the Conservative & Unionist party should have reviewed at during their 14 years in power, if they could have been ar$ed? Of course anyone involved in serious crimes like terror/abuse etc. deserves significant time in jail, but perhaps if the Conservative & Unionist party had invested properly in prisons then maybe some of the 'random' cases you highlight (mostly ethnically related) might have got longer sentences - for me this might have also included the serious crimes of Horizon chief executives and Michelle Mone/Doug Barrowman.
Click to expand...
Isn’t it quite difficult to remove judges, shitty or not?
 
SBT said:
You would have to prove that Hope Not Hate deliberately spread misinformation with the intention of creating violent disorder - no-one could argue that with a straight face.
Click to expand...
Why does it seem acceptable to suggest that one group did this and that another didn’t?
 
SBT said:
You would have to prove that Hope Not Hate deliberately spread misinformation with the intention of creating violent disorder - no-one could argue that with a straight face.
Click to expand...
Why does it seem acceptable to suggest that one group did this and that another didn’t?
SBT said:
Because the alternative explanation isn’t rooted in reality
Click to expand...
In your opinion. Not in everyone’s.
I doubt either of us can prove our opinion is correct, so they must be equally valid.
However, if misinformation had been spread and violent disorder was created, they can’t claim to be entirely innocent, can they?
 
MalcSB said:
Why does it seem acceptable to suggest that one group did this and that another didn’t?

In your opinion. Not in everyone’s.
I doubt either of us can prove our opinion is correct, so they must be equally valid.
However, if misinformation had been spread and violent disorder was created, they can’t claim to be entirely innocent, can they?
Click to expand...
I don’t think a court of law would find them guilty - if you disagree, why not show me your evidence?
 
SBT said:
I don’t think a court of law would find them guilty - if you disagree, why not show me your evidence?
Click to expand...
Did You read the post where I doubted either of us had evidence.?

It was misinformation. It resulted in violent disorder.

Personally I think it would be interesting for it to be tried in a court of law. Won’t happen though as Starmer would be calling in old favours from the CPS again.

He doesn’t want to alienate the muslim community, there are far too many votes there.
 
SBT said:
I don’t think a court of law would find them guilty - if you disagree, why not show me your evidence?
Click to expand...

Didn’t Lowles admit he used social media to whip up protests across many cities by falsely claiming there was going to be far right protests across several cities?
 
MalcSB said:
Did You read the post where I doubted either of us had evidence.?

It was misinformation. It resulted in violent disorder.

Personally I think it would be interesting for it to be tried in a court of law. Won’t happen though as Starmer would be calling in old favours from the CPS again.

He doesn’t want to alienate the muslim community, there are far too many votes there.
Click to expand...
I don’t have any evidence that you’re not a tax criminal either. However interesting it might be for me to see you face tax charges, it’s not how our justice system works, you’re being silly.

The Muslim community seems like one of the most electorally unimportant constituencies in British politics.
 
Grendel said:
Didn’t Lowles admit he used social media to whip up protests across many cities by falsely claiming there was going to be far right protests across several cities?
Click to expand...
I assume you’re referring to the list of anti-immigrant protests which he later said was a hoax. Did he make that list up? Did he share it with the intention of sparking violence?
 
SBT said:
I assume you’re referring to the list of anti-immigrant protests which he later said was a hoax. Did he make that list up? Did he share it with the intention of sparking violence?
Click to expand...

Well I’d suggest he didn’t mention it so everyone could go out and have a nice cup of tea. Did he ever apologise for the fake acid attack claims?
 
SBT said:
I assume you’re referring to the list of anti-immigrant protests which he later said was a hoax. Did he make that list up? Did he share it with the intention of sparking violence?
Click to expand...
If you're asking people to mob up and defend against another mob, then I'm not sure what else the intention might be. Not about who is in the right or wrong, but both (imo) are equally accountable for their presence and if that presence has been fueled by someone suggesting another aggressor, I dont see how that differs from p[protests against the original perpetrator.
 
Grendel said:
Well I’d suggest he didn’t mention it so everyone could go out and have a nice cup of tea.
Click to expand...
rob9872 said:
If you're asking people to mob up and defend against another mob, then I'm not sure what else the intention might be. Not about who is in the right or wrong, but both (imo) are equally accountable for their presence and if that presence has been fueled by someone suggesting another aggressor, I dont see how that differs from p[protests against the original perpetrator.
Click to expand...
Again, if you have evidence that he specifically wanted to generate violence then let’s see it.

The idea that he’s “equally accountable” to a guy with Mein Kampf in his boot who set up a Telegram channel urging “heavy hitters” to “mask up” and gather in numbers outside a mosque and hang the Home Secretary is ridiculous.
 
SBT said:
Again, if you have evidence that he specifically wanted to generate violence then let’s see it.

The idea that he’s “equally accountable” to a guy with Mein Kampf in his boot who set up a Telegram channel urging “heavy hitters” to “mask up” and gather in numbers outside a mosque and hang the Home Secretary is ridiculous.
Click to expand...
I actually said 'both mobs (whether defending or attacking) were equally accountable for their presence' and never mentioned that the this guy was equally accountable to the guy prosecuted. I suspect you knew that though, but making your own stories out of posts to serve your agenda. I guess it's journalistic licence!
 
Stoking up fear did, of course, cause violence. Especially when it's stuff about a Muslim woman being attacked with acid and that the EDL are coming.

This is a side question, how and where do they get the protest signs from in such large amounts in short spaces of time? Who pays for them?
 
rob9872 said:
I actually said 'both mobs (whether defending or attacking) were equally accountable for their presence' and never mentioned that the this guy was equally accountable to the guy prosecuted. I suspect you knew that though, but making your own stories out of posts to serve your agenda. I guess it's journalistic licence!
Click to expand...
You’re conflating the overwhelmingly peaceful counter-protests with the violent disorder outside the Southport mosque (“I’m not sure what else the intention might be”)

I know there were also violent counter-protesters, some of whom were inspired by deliberate misinformation - those guys should all go to prison btw - but it has no bearing on the rights and wrongs of sending a neo-Nazi to prison for directly organising an attack on a mosque, and I’m still none the wiser as to what riots the bloke from Hope Not Hate is supposed to have deliberately started.
 
MalcSB said:
How can he plead not guilty to carrying a bladed weapon?

isn’t his defence basically that he is neurodivergent?
Why don’t pyscopaths make similar pleas?
Click to expand...

My understanding is that people who are seeking a lesser charge(s) on the grounds of diminished responsibility will not plead guilty to murder, it would be illogical to do so. They're saying that they are willing to plead guilty to manslaughter on the above grounds.
 
SBT said:
“Especially when”?
Click to expand...

Well yeah, I am sure you can see what happens when somebody with a much bigger audience and reach spreads misinformation and that the EDL are coming it can cause issues.

You keep saying about the bloke who setup the Telegram channel going to prison, Im not sure many are arguing about him being sent down, are they? The question was about the sentence.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.