Vermin

[ChillDoubt]

If only there were some sort of anti-British law whereby we could have these two vile creatures removed from these islands.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-26579717

Hope springs eternal.......

[emmie]

if you say so. why bother then if it is.

[Orderlimit]

I was pleasantly surprised by the sentences, although I don't think Barnes should have qualified for all his to run concurrently but that's probably down to the fairly new Sentencing Council.

Sentencing Council: Guidelines — Question: 3:15 pm:

Baroness Miller of Hendon: ".... Is the Minister aware that justice is not served when the system seems to operate like a supermarket: “Commit one crime and get another one free”?

Anyway, well done to the Met again !!!

[ChillDoubt]

I am not defending these individuals, and their actions were offensive, but I am not sure why they admitted their guilt. They were charged with 3 counts of disseminating a terrorists publication. In this case, a terrorist publication is a video put on YouTube. The last of these counts of 'terrorism' consisted largely of...

// ...Barnes laughing hysterically as he drove past floral tributes to the soldier alongside his partner. //

A terrorist publication? Unpleasant and offensive, but 5 years for laughing?

The other charge was incitement to murder. This was a post by Barnes on YouTube in which he promised a secondhand Vauxhall Astra to any one repeating the Rigby murder. Would anyone actually be incited to actually do that for a secondhand Vauxhall Astra?

Two did it for nothing more than infamy and gratification, but well done for trivialising the gruesome murder of a beloved father and son......you sicko.

[Gromit]

// Two did it for nothing more than infamy and gratification, but well done for trivialising the gruesome murder of a beloved father and son......you sicko. //

Groundhog day. How have I trivialised Lee Rigby's murder?

This pair did not commit that murder. They admitted that a video showing themselves laughing at the floral tribute to Rigby was a terrorist publication. Do terrorists need istructions how to laugh? Are you terrorised by this man laughing? Would a second hand 3 door Vauxhall Astra encourage you to murder someone?

// Anyway, well done to the Met again !!! //

Yes well done the Met. You were given the IP details of the pair by YpuTube and you arrested the pair and they admited their guilt. That must have been a tough case to crack.

[Orderlimit]

"Yes well done the Met. You were given the IP details of the pair by YpuTube and you arrested the pair and they admited their guilt.."

Is that all that happened with these 'trumped up' non-offences??

[Gromit]

When YouTube and their IP provider gave the Police the pairs address, they managed to find their house without getting lost or kicking in the wrong door. So well done once again.

Obviously to see a video of a man laughing, and then to decide it was a terrorist publication took a lot of creative thinking. Great to see the Met employing the best minds out there.

[Orderlimit]

So what should they have done?

[Gromit]

The videos were offensive and there had been complaints so the police had a duty to arrest them.

The content of the videos in my view were not terrorist related, but a case that they were illegal can be made.

// The content of a website can also be illegal when it threatens or harasses a person or a group of people. If this is posted because of hostility based on race, religion, sexual orientation, disability or transgender then we consider it to be a hate crime.

Illegal material could be in words, pictures, videos, and even music and could include;

messages calling for racial or religious violence
web pages with pictures, videos or descriptions that glorify violence against anyone due to their race, religion, disability, sexual orientation or because they are transgender.
chat forums where people ask other people to commit hate crimes //

These two numpties are not terrorists, they are stupid indoctrinated individuals who like the notoriety and attention their videos and posts ellicit. Rather than granting them their wish of publicity by a high profile trial, they should have been charged with lesser offenses and given 200 hours of community service picking up litter on the high street.

[Orderlimit]

"The content of the videos in my view were not terrorist related"

You seem to know more than the police /cps / courts are willing to disclose.
Did the police manage to establish their motives and intentions during their investigation of this simple case Gromit, or did they just make the evidence fit the highest possible charge?

"they should have been charged with lesser offenses"

So, alter the evidence / info, make it fit the definition of some other offence so they can get community punishment?

[naomi24]

Gromit, Fortunately for society those who know what they’re talking about don’t agree with you.

//Mari Reid, of the Crown Prosecution Service's Counter Terrorism Division, said ….

"These were not throwaway comments from a thoughtless individual, but the hardened beliefs of an extremist.”//

[Gromit]

Naomi

I have not seen the video in question but it is reported to have been largely Barnes laughing at the flowers. I do not feel terrorised by that, even if the lady from the CPS thinks she is protecting me.

Barnes' criminal record is not terrorist related, he is a thug. I want thugs locked up with thug laws, and terrorist laws used to protect against genuinely dangerous people.

[Svejk]

dog-bone

[naomi24]

Gromit, whatever Barnes previous criminal record involves there’s no doubt he’s added terrorist related charges to it because he posted more than one video and he did rather more than laugh. Did you actually look at the link?

[Orderlimit]

"and terrorist laws used to protect against genuinely dangerous people."

Which is what the relevant agencies who have all the facts have done here. Its what happens in the real world i'm afraid.

[Ric.ror]

Perhaps we should get more inventive with our punishments
I'm thinking along the lines of liquidised pork pies, Jewish rent boys and pigskin lined coffins (please feel free to change these to 'accommodate' different religions or beliefs)

[Ric.ror]

As for the woman in the veil simple - publish the mugshot

[emmie]

i did see the links, disturbing and vile. I don't want these two free to do community service, can you see this woman, who got her time in court free from the restrictions that bind you and i, to wear the veil, why was she simply told, no veil, its not that hard a decision, if refuse to remove it, then that is contempt of court. Can you also see these two picking up litter, be a little bit realistic, human rights would be involved, and any number of human rights lawyers ready to defend their rights to not do such a demeaning thing as picking up litter, or to do community service, they got jail time, good. As to this nonsense of we should be ultra tolerant, whilst they are obviously not, make me wonder when we will learn. We shouldn't reach their level of stupidity or ignorance, however we ignore the basic truth they are indoctrinated into a religion that has versions, interpretations that would tax the average scholar, Islamic or other.

[Gromit]

It is not against the law to wear a veil. The Judge allowed it in this case, so there must not be anything specifically banning it from the courtroom, though it usually is considered contempt of court. You or I may not like it, but until we go down the same road as France and pass laws forcing people to wear state approved clthing, there is nothing you can do.

This lady in a burqa wearing an hi viz jacket and picking up cider cans would be very amusing to see.looking

[emmie]

is she doing community service or a litter collector, there is a difference, if a litter collector, she gets paid, if a volunteer, then good for her. as to the veil in court, if standing facing a jury wearing a veil, how can she be seen, i was under the impression that is part and parcel of being tried by a jury. Banning the burqua, veil, isn't going to happen, too many in UK who want to keep it, and in France you would need an army to enforce the ban, so it's unlikely to have changed a lot. Unedifying photo's of French police rounding up a group of women and children, whilst their men folk stood away from the fray, it made quite a good story in the papers, and made the French police look like bully boys. I see the same comments here. Many people already have an issue with British Police, especially the Met in recent times, so can't see a ban being enforced any day soon.

[anotheoldgit]

No one should be allowed to wear full face covering in a British court of law, neither should anyone be allowed to ride a motor cycle without a crash helmet, or allowed on a building site without a protective helmet, or allowed to alter the appearance of any uniform by wearing a different head cover than the proper uniform head dress.

Anyone have any disagreements on these issues?