rioters

[blan89 159]

can you prove that?

seeing as it never happened.

 

if jokes can incite riots im sure they can incite hate crimes too...

[blan89 159]

I think that the judicial got it wrong this time round, yes by all means execute them b*****ds that brought havoc and mayhem to the streets, but ffs two lads sitting at home trying to be hard on the FB site, this type of sentencing makes a mockery of the whole system.

 

The system would be best served were they to channel their resources into the finding and bringing to justice the filth that caused such mayhem instead of wasting time on two young pups taking the piss from their bedrooms.

 

oh do you know these to lads aswell?

all very well people speculating on these two face book c**ts,do you know thier previous convictions or what type of lads they are.yea like i said if i was them and in thier position,all day long im gonna say it was a joke to the law.flip side to that coin being,what if they did manage to create a riot.do you think they would sit in thier bedroom and think "oh no we were only joking".like f**k they would,they would have been thier helping themselfs to whatever they could get thier grubby little hands on.possibly even setting fire to a shop and killing someone.im just speculating here btw,same as you lot who are thinking.oh waht a shame,thats a bit harsh on the two lads who were only having a joke and acting hard.would you still find it funny if they had wrecked your business or burned you out of your home.seriously i cant believe in a short space of time,there some folk saying this is a bit harsh.

 

maybe your sig indicates your likely to become an extremist and commit some act of terror.

maybe every sighthound owner is going to hunt hares.

maybe everyone who owns a gun for sporting purposes is going to go on a killing spree.

 

maybes and might do's aren't crimes.

 

I agree, likewise "I was just having a laugh" isnt an excuse.

 

an excuse for what?

what crime have they committed?

 

could it be argued that talking about quarry taken pre-ban or abroad could incite someone to break the law here?

thats where we are heading with this shit.

 

the worst part is there are morons who are not only willing to accept it,but support it.

 

Are you really that stupid? Talking about an illegal act and trying to organise one are two completely different things!

 

I can talk about how to build a nuclear weapon and the destruction they cause from a purely academic point all I want but as soon as I start putting up a wanted add for enriched uranium to build one the authorities are gonna start to take an interest! And so they fecking should!

 

there's a difference between taking an interest and giving 4 years imprisonment.

[Born Hunter 17,974]

Righto, when you have an argument to back your previous statement I'll answer.

[Born Hunter 17,974]

I think that the judicial got it wrong this time round, yes by all means execute them b*****ds that brought havoc and mayhem to the streets, but ffs two lads sitting at home trying to be hard on the FB site, this type of sentencing makes a mockery of the whole system.

 

The system would be best served were they to channel their resources into the finding and bringing to justice the filth that caused such mayhem instead of wasting time on two young pups taking the piss from their bedrooms.

 

oh do you know these to lads aswell?

all very well people speculating on these two face book c**ts,do you know thier previous convictions or what type of lads they are.yea like i said if i was them and in thier position,all day long im gonna say it was a joke to the law.flip side to that coin being,what if they did manage to create a riot.do you think they would sit in thier bedroom and think "oh no we were only joking".like f**k they would,they would have been thier helping themselfs to whatever they could get thier grubby little hands on.possibly even setting fire to a shop and killing someone.im just speculating here btw,same as you lot who are thinking.oh waht a shame,thats a bit harsh on the two lads who were only having a joke and acting hard.would you still find it funny if they had wrecked your business or burned you out of your home.seriously i cant believe in a short space of time,there some folk saying this is a bit harsh.

 

maybe your sig indicates your likely to become an extremist and commit some act of terror.

maybe every sighthound owner is going to hunt hares.

maybe everyone who owns a gun for sporting purposes is going to go on a killing spree.

 

maybes and might do's aren't crimes.

 

I agree, likewise "I was just having a laugh" isnt an excuse.

 

an excuse for what?

what crime have they committed?

 

could it be argued that talking about quarry taken pre-ban or abroad could incite someone to break the law here?

thats where we are heading with this shit.

 

the worst part is there are morons who are not only willing to accept it,but support it.

 

Are you really that stupid? Talking about an illegal act and trying to organise one are two completely different things!

 

I can talk about how to build a nuclear weapon and the destruction they cause from a purely academic point all I want but as soon as I start putting up a wanted add for enriched uranium to build one the authorities are gonna start to take an interest! And so they fecking should!

 

there's a difference between taking an interest and giving 4 years imprisonment.

 

And yes there is a difference, its called a successfull conviction. But again, whats your point?

[scothunter 12,609]

...

Edited August 18, 2011 by scothunter

[scothunter 12,609]

i dont need to prove it.they convicted themselfs,when they decided to try and organise a riot in thier home town and type on the internet thier intentions.tbh they deserve the 4years for being stupid c**ts.

[blan89 159]

I think that the judicial got it wrong this time round, yes by all means execute them b*****ds that brought havoc and mayhem to the streets, but ffs two lads sitting at home trying to be hard on the FB site, this type of sentencing makes a mockery of the whole system.

 

The system would be best served were they to channel their resources into the finding and bringing to justice the filth that caused such mayhem instead of wasting time on two young pups taking the piss from their bedrooms.

 

oh do you know these to lads aswell?

all very well people speculating on these two face book c**ts,do you know thier previous convictions or what type of lads they are.yea like i said if i was them and in thier position,all day long im gonna say it was a joke to the law.flip side to that coin being,what if they did manage to create a riot.do you think they would sit in thier bedroom and think "oh no we were only joking".like f**k they would,they would have been thier helping themselfs to whatever they could get thier grubby little hands on.possibly even setting fire to a shop and killing someone.im just speculating here btw,same as you lot who are thinking.oh waht a shame,thats a bit harsh on the two lads who were only having a joke and acting hard.would you still find it funny if they had wrecked your business or burned you out of your home.seriously i cant believe in a short space of time,there some folk saying this is a bit harsh.

 

maybe your sig indicates your likely to become an extremist and commit some act of terror.

maybe every sighthound owner is going to hunt hares.

maybe everyone who owns a gun for sporting purposes is going to go on a killing spree.

 

maybes and might do's aren't crimes.

 

I agree, likewise "I was just having a laugh" isnt an excuse.

 

an excuse for what?

what crime have they committed?

 

could it be argued that talking about quarry taken pre-ban or abroad could incite someone to break the law here?

thats where we are heading with this shit.

 

the worst part is there are morons who are not only willing to accept it,but support it.

 

Are you really that stupid? Talking about an illegal act and trying to organise one are two completely different things!

 

I can talk about how to build a nuclear weapon and the destruction they cause from a purely academic point all I want but as soon as I start putting up a wanted add for enriched uranium to build one the authorities are gonna start to take an interest! And so they fecking should!

 

there's a difference between taking an interest and giving 4 years imprisonment.

 

And yes there is a difference, its called a successfull conviction. But again, whats your point?

 

no taking an interest could just be monitoring them and if the police (or authorities in charge of the investigation) find them buying a banned substance arrest them.

 

likewise they could of monitored these 'rioters' put a police prescence where they said they would be and arrested those who actually committed a crime.

[Born Hunter 17,974]

Oh right, so its better to make arrests after the crimes are committed than stop them from even being committed is it? Thats why they were prosecuted, because they had every intention of causing a riot! How do you not get that? If I threatened to murder someone and the authorities genuinely believed I was going to then should I not be prosecuted for the law I have broken before I actually commit the worse crime of murder?

 

Editted to add, incase you were unaware making the threat to murder is a crime.

Edited August 18, 2011 by Born Hunter

[scothunter 12,609]

I think that the judicial got it wrong this time round, yes by all means execute them b*****ds that brought havoc and mayhem to the streets, but ffs two lads sitting at home trying to be hard on the FB site, this type of sentencing makes a mockery of the whole system.

 

The system would be best served were they to channel their resources into the finding and bringing to justice the filth that caused such mayhem instead of wasting time on two young pups taking the piss from their bedrooms.

 

oh do you know these to lads aswell?

all very well people speculating on these two face book c**ts,do you know thier previous convictions or what type of lads they are.yea like i said if i was them and in thier position,all day long im gonna say it was a joke to the law.flip side to that coin being,what if they did manage to create a riot.do you think they would sit in thier bedroom and think "oh no we were only joking".like f**k they would,they would have been thier helping themselfs to whatever they could get thier grubby little hands on.possibly even setting fire to a shop and killing someone.im just speculating here btw,same as you lot who are thinking.oh waht a shame,thats a bit harsh on the two lads who were only having a joke and acting hard.would you still find it funny if they had wrecked your business or burned you out of your home.seriously i cant believe in a short space of time,there some folk saying this is a bit harsh.

 

maybe your sig indicates your likely to become an extremist and commit some act of terror.

maybe every sighthound owner is going to hunt hares.

maybe everyone who owns a gun for sporting purposes is going to go on a killing spree.

 

maybes and might do's aren't crimes.

 

I agree, likewise "I was just having a laugh" isnt an excuse.

 

an excuse for what?

what crime have they committed?

 

could it be argued that talking about quarry taken pre-ban or abroad could incite someone to break the law here?

thats where we are heading with this shit.

 

the worst part is there are morons who are not only willing to accept it,but support it.

 

Are you really that stupid? Talking about an illegal act and trying to organise one are two completely different things!

 

I can talk about how to build a nuclear weapon and the destruction they cause from a purely academic point all I want but as soon as I start putting up a wanted add for enriched uranium to build one the authorities are gonna start to take an interest! And so they fecking should!

 

there's a difference between taking an interest and giving 4 years imprisonment.

 

And yes there is a difference, its called a successfull conviction. But again, whats your point?

 

no taking an interest could just be monitoring them and if the police (or authorities in charge of the investigation) find them buying a banned substance arrest them.

 

likewise they could of monitored these 'rioters' put a police prescence where they said they would be and arrested those who actually committed a crime.

 

you are missing the point blan.why should they monitor them.they have already committed the crime.its called inciting to riot.its all very well saying poor lads.just think for a min if they had succesfully managed to get this riot started.silly c**ts wanted it in thier home town,where in all probability they have famiky and relatives working in the town.just goes to show the mentality of them.im proud of my country and the fact that some wanted to bring into chaos is enough for me to say f**k them,they deserve everyday they serve.

when the rioters were running around setting froes,attracking innocent people and thieving,bet they thought they had won the lottery.well thyere is consequences for breaking the law.this shower thought they were above the law,well they will have plenty time to reflect on thier days of rioting,and maybe they will realise,it certainly wasnt worth it.

Edited August 18, 2011 by scothunter

[Attack Fell Terrier 864]

i agree with you guys the politicians and crooked cops should face justice aswell,but no way that should interfere with dealing with this lot who took it upon themselfs to loot and destroy british cities.

 

Did either of those prat's even riot though Scot? I think they've just got them before the court and thought f**k'em they're a pair of nobody scallywags who no one worth a shit gives a damn about, so we'll make an example of these two! They wouldn't of dared done that with two black boys who were actually out there rioting.

 

I understand you wanting to be hard on those who have wrecked the place, but lets get the right people before we start handing out the harsh punishment first ey.

 

How about them taking the rioters council housing away from them and their benefits, what do you make of that mate? What good (or bad) do you think that is going to do?

[scothunter 12,609]

you know fell i actually said that from the start,before the politicians said it.take way thier benefits and if they are in reciept of housing benefit stop it.however having actually thought about it,wouldnt work.we would just have them thieving more and then we have the prob of re housing them somewhere.

 

yes i hope they do hand down sentences to the blacks who were involved in the riots.not heard any yet,but i think the majority of the actual rioters would have plead not guilty so we will just have to wait and see what sort of custodials get handed down.i hope to f**k that they will not hang back because they blacks.i honestly dont think they will though.i think the goverment got a wake up call here,and they will do thier best to make sure this isnt repeated.

at the end of the day these rioters and would be future rioters need to be made aware that its unacceptable behaviour and wont be tolerated.

[blan89 159]

Oh right, so its better to make arrests after the crimes are committed than stop them from even being committed is it? Thats why they were prosecuted, because they had every intention of causing a riot! How do you not get that? If I threatened to murder someone and the authorities genuinely believed I was going to then should I not be prosecuted for the law I have broken before I actually commit the worse crime of murder?

 

Editted to add, incase you were unaware making the threat to murder is a crime.

what a load of bollocks the lads said it was a joke before they were arrested,even if they didnt nothing can be proved.

 

how can you not see how this sort of thing could be used against YOU ffs?

 

guilty until proven innocent,i guess its only ok when its somebody else or you dont agree with the crime they are accused of.

 

@ scothunter,so should every crime not be judged on its own merit?

 

batter some poor c**t in the street,rob them,setting fire to their house are all serious crimes regardless of if there was a riot going on

 

forget the riot,would saying lets have a riot behind maccy's be a crime in normal circumstances?would it be worthy of 4 years?

 

if you want to limit our fredom of expression,it will apply to you too,no more potentially racist/homophobic/anti-religious jokes,they are all proof that you where about to commit a hate crime.

 

 

freedom of expression is too important to f**k around with like this.

[Born Hunter 17,974]

i agree with you guys the politicians and crooked cops should face justice aswell,but no way that should interfere with dealing with this lot who took it upon themselfs to loot and destroy british cities.

 

Did either of those prat's even riot though Scot? I think they've just got them before the court and thought f**k'em they're a pair of nobody scallywags who no one worth a shit gives a damn about, so we'll make an example of these two! They wouldn't of dared done that with two black boys who were actually out there rioting.

 

I understand you wanting to be hard on those who have wrecked the place, but lets get the right people before we start handing out the harsh punishment first ey.

 

How about them taking the rioters council housing away from them and their benefits, what do you make of that mate? What good (or bad) do you think that is going to do?

 

Tbh AFT I think the way the courts have seen this is these two lads, attempted at least, to be ring leaders. Now, at first they do not appear to have committed as serious a crime as those actually looting but in the eyes of the law what they did or attempted to do was ALOT worse. People are getting hung up on the fact that these lads actions had no real bad consiquences, imo thats not the point, they intended to cause hell! One rioter/looter will do a limited amount of damage, the indivduals that incite a riot (or attempt to) are responsible for the whole thing and should be hammered hard, whether they were successfull or not.

[Born Hunter 17,974]

Oh right, so its better to make arrests after the crimes are committed than stop them from even being committed is it? Thats why they were prosecuted, because they had every intention of causing a riot! How do you not get that? If I threatened to murder someone and the authorities genuinely believed I was going to then should I not be prosecuted for the law I have broken before I actually commit the worse crime of murder?

 

Editted to add, incase you were unaware making the threat to murder is a crime.

what a load of bollocks the lads said it was a joke before they were arrested,even if they didnt nothing can be proved.

 

how can you not see how this sort of thing could be used against YOU ffs?

 

guilty until proven innocent,i guess its only ok when its somebody else or you dont agree with the crime they are accused of.

 

@ scothunter,so should every crime not be judged on its own merit?

 

batter some poor c**t in the street,rob them,setting fire to their house are all serious crimes regardless of if there was a riot going on

 

forget the riot,would saying lets have a riot behind maccy's be a crime in normal circumstances?would it be worthy of 4 years?

 

if you want to limit our fredom of expression,it will apply to you too,no more potentially racist/homophobic/anti-religious jokes,they are all proof that you where about to commit a hate crime.

 

 

freedom of expression is too important to f**k around with like this.

 

If I was threatening to commit a serious crime then I would expect to suffer the legal punishment! Difference being, Im not that f*****g stupid. Freedom of speech and inciting a crime are different. But in you gun toteing perfect world where everythings perfect I guess you dont have that issue.

 

And what were they expressing then? Ill tell ya what, their plans for a f*****g riot! Anyone can speak their mind but start planning a crime and you have over stepped the mark!

 

Answer my question about threatening murder. Should I be arrested for making the threat before or arrested for commiting murder after?

Edited August 18, 2011 by Born Hunter

[blan89 159]

you mean being told you have freedom of expression in principle and actually using that right are different.