Why Charlie Gilmour was sentenced fairly within the law


2:01 pm - July 15th 2011

by Lee Griffin    


      Share on Tumblr

There’s a bit of a fuss going on about Charlie Gilmour, and how apparently it’s outrageous that he has been sentenced to 16 months in prison (which, we all know, will only end up being 8 or so).

This outrage is bollocks.

You only have to take a look at the sentencing history for “Violent Disorder”, coupled with Mr Gilmour’s nature in court (allegedly giggling at scenes of his actions), tempered by the fact he pleaded guilty and apologised for certain (but not all) actions.

Attacking a police officer by throwing bottles – 10 months
Encouraging others to KILL police officers – 12 months
Revenge attack on property, with “attack” of person, person of good character – 18 months
Taking part in a riot, repetitive attacks on riot police with state of mind to “re-arm” with projectiles, second offence – 3 years

16 months, given that Charlie doesn’t exactly seem remorseful of the main elements of the charge (which is the threat, as little as it was in reality, he put members of family of the head of state under, and the encouragement for others to break the law vandalism of property), seems pretty much bang on all things considered, doesn’t it?

Now, perhaps the sentencing range (maximum 5 years) for this offence is too harsh, that’d be a fair stance to take.

But to call this sentencing “political” or “outrageous” is to just not have bothered to check what is normal in sentencing this kind of offence, as it stands in law.

    Share on Tumblr   submit to reddit  


About the author
Lee is a 20 something web developer from Cornwall now residing in Bristol since completing his degree at the lesser university. He has strange dreams, a big appetite, a small flat, and when not forcing his views on the world he is probably eating a cookie. Lee blogs independently from party colours at Program your own mind.
· Other posts by


Story Filed Under: Blog ,Crime

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.


Reader comments


The cases you cite all seem to involve serious assaults. Did Gilmour attack anyone? I genuinely don’t know.

This sounds a teeny bit like the author just Googled sentencing periods for violent disorder and produced an average. What about mitigating factors such as Gilmour’s intoxication?

I don’t mean to put down the author of this post, but surely Liberal Conspiracy could get someone with a bit more experience with the law (even if it’s only a law student) to comment on the sentence?

Lee, your attempt to compare Charlie Gilmour’s sentencing with the four example cases has some serious flaws in it, and from the wording of your article, you appear to be directly suggesting that the four cases you quote fit in with what CG was accused of – think you’re treading a very fine line towards libel there and would suggest you reword your article to make it clear what you’re intending to infer.

As for the case itself, no two violent disorder cases will be the same – hence the range of sentencing a judge can carry out. Both the BBC and the Guardian reports identify three areas of violent disorder that he was accused of: “throwing a bin at a convoy of cars containing Prince Charles, sitting on a protection officer’s car and smashing a window.”

Now in your above article, you’re comparing “Encouraging others to KILL police officers” (12 months) with throwing a bin, smashing a window, and sitting on a car (16 months). Which of those two offences do you think is the more serious accusation?

Just to make it clear, CG’s actions can’t be excused, and he deserved a punishment for his crimes. But even in the examples you’ve picked above, you’ve shown up IMO how the sentence passed actually isn’t in line with what he was accused of. It looks like a show trial to me.

4. marc dauncey

LibCon should be concentrating on why no copper (even PC Harwood) has EVER faced charges from thuggery at protests – however, not remotely surprised by your line on this.

5. Mr S. Pill

@4

Yeah, Lib Con has never ever run a story about police brutality has it.

*rolls eyes*

6. Mr S. Pill

@3

“It looks like a show trial to me.”

Jesus wept. Do you have any understanding of what a show trial is? Or what they used to mean for political dissidents in totalitarian states?

Gilmour is a little rich kid who wanted to play at being a prole for the day & got caught out (mostly due to being off his face on narcotics). My symapthy is limited when there are hundreds of thousands of working-class teenagers having their lives ruined by the forces of the state every fucking week. Gilmour will be fine. Others, less so.

@ Zoe “What about mitigating factors such as Gilmour’s intoxication?”

Did someone spike his drink? If you voluntarily take any substance that causes intoxication then why should there be any mitigation due to this?

Yes me ‘lud I was drunk and disorderly but you see I was pissed at the time. Can you take that into mitigation?

8. Torquil Macneil

“What about mitigating factors such as Gilmour’s intoxication?”

Being drnnk or otherwise intoxicated is not a mitigating factor in violent disorder cases. Can you imagine how weird it would be if it was?

Lee, I’ve linked in via the website link, an article relating to football hooliganism where the majority of the defendants were convicted of violent disorder. Here you can see a wide range of sentences laid out, ranging from a nine month suspended sentence, through to an 18 months custodial sentence. You appear to have ignored that even in situations such as a football riot, that judges will frequently hand out suspended sentences. Can I ask why you picked out the four examples that you chose, and why you chose them, given that they clearly don’t represent the typical range of violent disorder sentencing?

@8 @9

Insight appreciated. Could LibCon actually do some good for protest in general and get someone familiar with the law to explain what exactly constitutes violent disorder and the mitigating/aggravating factors taken into account during sentencing? The only useful thing I can find on the Internet is this page and even then it doesn’t distinguish between which factor is which.

This is a pretty disgusting piece of apologetics for political sentencing without regard for even basic facts. As Martin says, it’s borderline libelous.

The sentence was for throwing a bin at a car, see:
http://www.thelawpages.com/court-cases/Charlie-Sampson-Gilmour-7102-1.law

Not for the things you mention.

If Gilmore had done the same thing on a night out he’d be looking at community service at most. No one was hurt. Very serious violent crimes receive far less. The political intent is quite clear. “Giggling”, in case you weren’t aware, is not a crime.

Lee,

Congratulations. When I read the first two paragraphs, I thought I was on Conservative Home for a minute…

That said, I think your point is correct – regardless of whether or not you agree with his rage, throwing a bin at a car is clearly a dangerous and criminal act, never mind the rest, and the sentance seems reasonable.

Jimmy: One, at 12 months, didn’t include any direct violence whatsoever. Gilmour did attack a convoy, albeit with a rubbish bin.

Zoe: It’s nothing about providing an average. 16 months isn’t even an average of those examples. It’s about providing context. Of course there are going to be mitigating factors involved, however there are also aggravating factors involved too

Martin: I attempt to contextualise rather than directly compare, but yes his case can be compared somewhat, if you like, to other cases of violent disorder as he has become one of those found guilty of that offence. That’s just common sense.

“Just to make it clear, CG’s actions can’t be excused, and he deserved a punishment for his crimes. But even in the examples you’ve picked above, you’ve shown up IMO how the sentence passed actually isn’t in line with what he was accused of”

I don’t believe this to be a fair assessment. In simple terms he attacked a royal convoy, and I’m not surprised that doing so would carry greater ramifications than simply attacking the police (given that it is a direct attack on the family of the head of state). He was also seen involved in multiple instances of rioting throughout the day, rather than merely being “provoked” in a single incident. He also isn’t as young as those that were given only 10 and 12 months (a mitigating factor in their sentencing)

I think there’s a discussion to be had over the politics of this case, why police offficers that clearly conducted violent acts without appropriate provocation, and why police tactics that were over-zealous, have neither been punished or brought under meaningful question, yet that the CPS sees a public interest in this particular case.

But a discussion over what the sentencing means, when it is so very clearly within an acceptable range of similar occurrence, is foolish.

Indeed. I like Lee, but this is a poor show. The reason we’re (I’m) annoyed at Gilmour’s sentencing is that people who actually do harm get less – if you glass your wife in the face, you get 10 months. He didn’t harm anyone, and none of his actions seriously could have. If we’re saying his sentence is in line with people who’re convicted of violent disorder after political events, there’s a legitimate question of “why do people who do violent things at political events get much harsher sentences than people who do violent things on other occasions? Especially as, at political events, all parties are consenting adults.

“The reason we’re (I’m) annoyed at Gilmour’s sentencing is that people who actually do harm get less – if you glass your wife in the face, you get 10 months. ”

Yet this is an issue of the way the law is. If there is a problem it is not with the fact this sentence was passed, or that the judge deemed it (acceptably so) to be correct…but that the law itself seems to judge causing unrest in a serious way as something much more dangerous than someone who is truly abusive.

I want people to frame their anger properly, if you have an issue with this particular law and it’s maximum sentence, or other laws and their maximum sentences, then it’s your MPs you need to be getting angry at, not a particular court room.

Lee – Re: “but yes his case can be compared somewhat, if you like, to other cases of violent disorder as he has become one of those found guilty of that offence. That’s just common sense.”

Sorry, but no, that’s not common sense, because as you’ve demonstrated, and as my linked BBC article demonstrated, there is a wide range of sentencing examples for violent disorder. Thus the sentence must depend upon the specific offence. You seem to think that trying to provoke others to kill police officers (12 months) is directly comparable with throwing a bin at a car (18 months). Can you justify why you think the two cases you quote are directly comparable. The first is surely more serious? You’ve effectively disproved your own article by the examples that you’ve given.

“If Gilmore had done the same thing on a night out he’d be looking at community service at most.”

Yes, because the law of violent disorder is not about individual action, but group action, such as it is. I’m not saying the law isn’t an ass…quite the opposite.

“Can I ask why you picked out the four examples that you chose, and why you chose them, given that they clearly don’t represent the typical range of violent disorder sentencing?”

I have no agenda, they’re just the ones I picked. Feel free to put the information of other sentences up in the comments, I’m sure people would enjoy the context 🙂

” Can you justify why you think the two cases you quote are directly comparable.”

I didn’t say they’re directly comparable. But they are comparable enough. Both cases are tested against the same law. As I say, common sense.

Zoe,

Insight appreciated. Could LibCon actually do some good for protest in general and get someone familiar with the law to explain what exactly constitutes violent disorder and the mitigating/aggravating factors taken into account during sentencing? The only useful thing I can find on the Internet is this page and even then it doesn’t distinguish between which factor is which.

IIUC all but the last factor (Impulsive action. Provocation) are aggravating factors.

How on earth is being intoxicated a mitigating factor as suggested by ‘Zoe’? This strikes me as going to the heart of the way many LibCon readers appear to feel; namely that it was sort of ok to be a little bit violent or over the top on the protest ‘coz the protest was right and good; and of course people are going to become upset and therefore it is alright if their emotions overcome them and they let it all out; and it is therefore outrageous if they suffer a criminal conviction but we’ll call it a political sentencing… {which strike me as a gross insult to real political prisoners who have suffered unfairly}.

21. Leon Wolfson

@2 – Intoxication shouldn’t generally be a mitigating factor, it should be a aggravating one. The person chose to impair their judgemental facilities, after all.

That said, I’m not surprised an example has been made of someone, and I expect the Tories to insist on it for everyone involved in protesting against them in any way.

Nope your article is bollocks. You are simply not comparing like with like.

23. the a&e charge nurse

[15] “I want people to frame their anger properly” – perhaps a good starting point would be to refrain from dismissing disquiet about sentencing as “bollocks”.

Mind you, some [6] seem to think that everything will be just fine after CG has done his porridge – but, (without the aid of crystal ball) how can anybody possibly say such a thing?
From what I’ve read part of this man’s young anger seems to be related to a rejection by his biological father (rather than a poor impression of prole-lite) not to mention injudicious use of mind warping substances such as LSD.

Whatever the problem in the mind of some observers jail is unlikely to be either a meaningful solution, or proportional punishment.

22. Then compare it with the sentence from the same judge of 12 months for throwing some placard sticks at police in full riot gear in a single incident, and this 16 months (only 4 months more) for attacking a royal convoy and also willfully causing property damage (along with plenty of information on his other actions through the day to make it clear this wasn’t an impetuous or one off action in the day). Different types of violent disorder in a way, but with a similarity of throwing items at others. It really seems very consistent.

the earlier charge of the kid that dropped the fire extinguisher, of 32 months, by similar comparisons is clearly way off the charts of reasonable sentencing.

What a load of rubbish this piece is. The sentence was harsh. Objectively, it was harsh. In context, it was harsh. In comparison with many mindless thugs who go out looking for someone to bash up on a weekend and get a suspended sentence and a few hours sweeping the streets, this sentence was harsh. It was in every sense draconian, and I’m pretty sure he’ll succeed at appealing against it.

I now realise that part of Mr Gilmour’s intoxication was made up of illegal drugs he had taken. Surely that merits a conviction in itself.

To Roger – perhaps all the mindless thugs, no doubt often intoxicated on drink and drugs, should be given a harsher punishment – not the other way around. Anti-social, violent, harassing, boorish behaviour is a blight to most reasonable, decent people out there who as a result suffer unnecessary anxiety and stress. I don’t know why so many on the left are somehow frightened to really condemn bad behaviour.

Doing eight moths for this is absolutely about right I’d say. It will be the making of him.
I wonder how that lad who threw the fire extinguisher off the roof is getting on in Feltham Young Offenders Institute.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W_fvOQbtzwk

@27: I disagree – I think the “booze Britain, can’t move for terrifying thugs” narrative is bullshit – but if that were true, then surely you’d be *actively campaigning* for drunk tits who fight each other to be given the same extreme sentences as drunk tits on political protests.

If you’re a drunk tit who lurches about the town beating people up, then surely you’re worse than a drunk tit who’s herded into a corral and occasionally, failingly, throws shit at people who are much more hardcore than him and are wearing riot gear?

There’s an album in this. “We don’t need no incarceration”

Before I get my coat, surely this is the kind of case that would have warranted a community sentence?

What about mitigating factors such as Gilmour’s intoxication?

Intoxication, unless involuntary, will usually be seen as an aggravating factor, and not a mitigation. And yes, 16 months for violent disorder is more or less in line with standard sentencing.

@damon difference is, while the dude who chucked the extinguisher was a thoughtless twat, he could’ve killed a copper. And we don’t want people to die. Nothing Charlie did could have done anything other than annoy someone.

Roger,

What a load of rubbish this piece is. The sentence was harsh. Objectively, it was harsh. In context, it was harsh. In comparison with many mindless thugs who go out looking for someone to bash up on a weekend and get a suspended sentence and a few hours sweeping the streets, this sentence was harsh. It was in every sense draconian, and I’m pretty sure he’ll succeed at appealing against it.

Nah – he, in one of a succession of drunken and violent acts, threw a bin at a car (in which the inhabitants would find it hard to move) in a convoy escorting a public figure – you know, I think in context the sentence is fair.

I would suggest that many of the mindless thugs you adduce as evidence here (we’re sounding a bit Daily Mail with this you know) actually get unfairly easy sentences – violence should never be non-custodial, as it is never the best answer. But there is a substantive difference between drunken ignorance and drunken rioting – riots are more of a danger to social order, and therefore the deterrent (prison sentence) is likely to be more severe.

Tim J – Violent disorder is only prosecuted in this kind of context, so that’s an irrelevant point. Someone who didn’t, and couldn’t have even if unlucky, harmed anyone vs someone who deliberately stuck a glass in someone else’s face? Point is, penalties for violent disorder (that harms nobody) are harsher than penalties for ABH, and they shouldn’t be.

Personally I feel that 16 months was too long given the nature of sentences given for other offences – however the argument against this will of course be that one should not compare different offence penalties. A debate for another day…
However, it does make one wonder if the accused had not been the son of a ‘celebrity’ whether such a hefty sentence would have been handed down as obviously reporting on this case would make the newspapers. Just a shame that the NotW will not be there on Sunday to pontificate because we all know how high their moral standards and hypocrisy rating had risen. [Irony alert]
As for Lee’s remark about “the threat, as little as it was in reality, he put members of family of the head of state under” – my reading of that particular incident was that in reality, members of the Royal Protection Squad put those individuals under the threat [sic] by allowing their progress into the line of a ‘riot’. Covering tracks comes to mind.
So Charlie Gilmour giggled in court. Possibly from nerves, but, whatever, I didn’t know that was a punishable offence. Although there is an old song which goes along the lines of ‘Never smile at a crocodile’. Perhaps Pink Floyd could regroup and release a version of this substituting words like ‘Right to Protest’. Just a thought.

“Point is, penalties for violent disorder (that harms nobody) are harsher than penalties for ABH, ”

My understanding is that the penalty for ABH is exactly the same as for Violent Disorder, which is why I’m confused about the 10 month sentence for the glassing of a wife. I wish I could get more details to understand why that sentence was so low.

@27: that’s another, much more nuanced debate within itself. I’m not afraid to condemn anyone – the guy who threw the fire extinguisher was acting recklessly and could have caused someone serious, irreversible and even fatal damage. He deserved prison time. Gilmour? A completely different case altogether. He swung on a monument. Sentimentality and emotion aside, it’s essentially a great piece of stone. Do we really need him off our streets, considering his character and achievements (now graduated from Cambridge), taking up a cell that could be used for someone like Andy Coulson (sorry, had to get that in there)

38. the a&e charge nurse

[29] “I think the “booze Britain, can’t move for terrifying thugs” narrative is bullshit” – maybe but it remains an under reported problem

Research conducted in three Glasgow hospitals in March 2004 suggests that violent crimes are under-reported by at least 50%, possibly nearer 70%. And 55% of the individuals who came into A&E departments during the period of another recent study stated they would not report their assault to the police. In order to get an accurate assessment of the level of community violence we must start where the action is: at the point of treatment”.
http://www.obv.org.uk/news-blogs/public-health-and-violent-crime

It is said “The official figures on violent crime do not reflect the true extent of level of violence in our communities. The reality as all communities know is that violent crime is much, much worse than the official figures suggest. The data is known but not shared with the public for fear of what might happen if the true extent of violence was to become public knowledge” (same source).

Chaz is no better or worse than many of the punters thrown out of A&E on a typical Saturday – perhaps they all need to be put in jail is well?

@33: just to clarify, was he actually charged and/or convicted with ‘riot’? I haven’t really looked into it in depth, but when we’re discussing the law we ought not to use general throw-away terms like ‘riot’, which is a very specific offence under the POA 1986 and has very serious connotations?

Also, he ‘threw a bin’? 16 months for throwing a bin at a car? Really? Really?

“Personally I feel that 16 months was too long given the nature of sentences given for other offences – however the argument against this will of course be that one should not compare different offence penalties.”

All laws are inherently political, the point of sentencing as it is for Violent Disorder is because the governments at the time must have wanted to confer the message that mass violence is one of the most serious things you can do. That’s what the politicians decided, and of course courts follow that. So you’re right, you can’t compare sentences between different offences, because it’s not a fair and level playing field. One crime’s sentences may be more or less “harsh” than another crime’s.

“A debate for another day…”

But the correct debate 😉

However, it does make one wonder if the accused had not been the son of a ‘celebrity’ whether such a hefty sentence would have been handed down as obviously reporting on this case would make the newspapers. Just a shame that the NotW will not be there on Sunday to pontificate because we all know how high their moral standards and hypocrisy rating had risen. [Irony alert]
“As for Lee’s remark about “the threat, as little as it was in reality, he put members of family of the head of state under” – my reading of that particular incident was that in reality, members of the Royal Protection Squad put those individuals under the threat [sic] by allowing their progress into the line of a ‘riot’. Covering tracks comes to mind.”

I don’t know the specifics of the route, I seem to remember that it was a designated route that they had planned to take for some time. It’s not unusual given the high profile of the occupants that they wouldn’t want to change this route, they will have had security detail in the area, on nearby buildings, etc, that would be extremely hard to reorganise at short notice.

There is, of course, some level of claim of incompetency that has to be levelled at the security services for going through that crowd. HOWEVER, the law is the law, and by all rights they should have feared nothing, even from a protest, as legally a protest should be non-violent. The offence caused was purely by those that then attacked the convoy, and just like I don’t condone those that say “she deserved it for dressing like that” nor will I even remotely entertain the notion that the convoy getting attacked was the convoy’s fault.

“So Charlie Gilmour giggled in court. Possibly from nerves, but, whatever, I didn’t know that was a punishable offence.”

No, but it will surely go towards character somewhat in the mind of those sentencing, don’t you think?

“Although there is an old song which goes along the lines of ‘Never smile at a crocodile’. Perhaps Pink Floyd could regroup and release a version of this substituting words like ‘Right to Protest’. Just a thought.”

He was given every right to protest, but he chose to spend the day acting like a brat, destroying property, attacking very senior members of the state and encouraging others to break the law. He took his rights in to the realm of acting criminally under the law. Do you believe there should be a right to attack others that are not posing a threat to you, and to destroy property, under the banner of “protest”?

Do we really need him off our streets, considering his character and achievements (now graduated from Cambridge), taking up a cell that could be used for someone like Andy Coulson (sorry, had to get that in there)

Much as I agree that actual punishments be reserved for proles, while those of us with a higher social status should be spared such unpleasantness, I should note that Gilmour hasn’t graduated from Cambridge and is unlikely now ever to do so.

Plus, it is traditional to wait until people are convicted of crimes before jailing them.

Although Charlie Gilmour is clearly the Nelson fucking Mandela of our times.

“Also, he ‘threw a bin’? 16 months for throwing a bin at a car? Really? Really?”

Violent disorder is not about the act of violence itself (as such) but that of the fear that others find themselves in. Indeed you don’t have to be violent to be convicted under violent disorder, a threat of violence is enough.

However do remember you can be put away for up to 5 years for serious violent disorder.

not just*

Roger,

A car. Occupied by people. Who, sitting in a car, could not dodge the heavy object thrown towards them. One of which people (perhaps not in the exact car, but in the convoy) happened to be the heir to the head of state.

I think contextually that is somewhat worse than swinging on a monument. And is why the sentance is for violent disorder not public disorder.

Not sure on what the legal term is for riot. I do know that for over 1000 years English law has consistently been more severe on those who commit violence as part of a group than on individuals, because group violence is far more dangerous (be it to government or to the population as a whole). The courts presumably still recognise this difference (it’s also why organised hooligans tend to get longer sentences than disorganised thugs using football as an excuse).

44. Riot is basically one up from Violent Disorder, and involves 12 people or more. Essentially they are both “riots” in a dictionary sense, but legally separate. Gilmour wasn’t charged at any point with rioting.

@36 Lee

“10 month sentence for the glassing of a wife. I wish I could get more details to understand why that sentence was so low.”

Fancy doing 10 months? It’s fucking ages.

This bandying about of numbers reminds me of the billions we always hear about in the context of bailouts. The numbers are abstractions, hard to relate to anything in our normal lives.

Gilmour will be out in far less time than his sentence but the time he spends inside will be long enough. Costly enough too, and for what purpose? He is a prime candidate for a hefty fine and a community sentence where he might do some good. The sentence handed down seems to me to be “Pour encourager les autres.”

Lee @ 40

“I don’t know the specifics of the route, I seem to remember that it was a designated route that they had planned to take for some time. It’s not unusual given the high profile of the occupants that they wouldn’t want to change this route, they will have had security detail in the area, on nearby buildings, etc, that would be extremely hard to reorganise at short notice.

There is, of course, some level of claim of incompetency that has to be levelled at the security services for going through that crowd. HOWEVER, the law is the law, and by all rights they should have feared nothing, even from a protest, as legally a protest should be non-violent.”

Firstly the route. I don’t want to nit pick here, but if the route had been planned for some time but something untoward had happened just before it was due to be taken, like a lorry catching fire or a large hole appearing in the road, surely the security detail would not have thought twice about re-routing the royal convoy.

It was reported on the TV that the car that the royal couple were travelling in was not ‘armoured’ in the sense that it did not have bullet proof glass or a strengthened body. I am not even sure if the windows were darkened so that all in all the royals became sitting ducks. You will probably say that precautions should not have been necessary for a trip to the theatre but there again we have been – as a country – on a high state of security alert for a number of months. Just saying.

Secondly I agree that protest should be peaceful, I have been a pacifist all my life and all my protesting has been of the peaceful type, just wish those on the other sides [police and security] had always been so minded! Charlie Gilmour was sadly one of those who get carried away and is in a tiny minority but who the press love to show as an example of those on the protest. However I don’t think that giving him an excessively harsh prison sentence will deter others. He of course should be punished, as was Edward Woollard for the fire extinguisher incident – and as should the police who dragged Jody McIntyre from his wheelchair and the police who injured Alfie Meadows.

Too much of the media is now more concerned with the story of this court case rather than the cause of the original protests. I am just as bad by putting in my twopennorth here. But this court case does leave so many of us who – along with the all those who were arrested at Fortnum & Mason on the 16th March – with a bad feeling about the way that *respectful* protestors are being treated in this country today. It is the Toldpuddle Rally this weekend, lest we forget our forefathers struggle.

Offense => trial => verdict => sentencing

Exactly which bit of the legal system failed here?

It was reported on the TV that the car that the royal couple were travelling in was not ‘armoured’ in the sense that it did not have bullet proof glass or a strengthened body. I am not even sure if the windows were darkened so that all in all the royals became sitting ducks. You will probably say that precautions should not have been necessary for a trip to the theatre but there again we have been – as a country – on a high state of security alert for a number of months. Just saying.

She was wearing a short skirt, M’lud, and had been drinking.

50. Leon Wolfson

@47 – Non-violence doesn’t seem to be a factor in many of the arrests the police have made during protests. Or the way they’ve kettled peaceful crowds for that matter.

This is just another example of sentencing based on deterrence of protest.

46. Ten months is not even a fifth of the maximum custodial sentence for the crime, so yes it is short within the framework of the law. I’m not saying it’s wrong or not, as I don’t know any of the details of that case and what it’s various factors were.

“He is a prime candidate for a hefty fine and a community sentence where he might do some good.”

I’m not going to disagree, I actually disagree with prison sentences that are handed out for less than 1.5-2 years, no doubt like you, I think there are better ways to do it.

Are they properly resourced though, in the current climate? Did the judge go down the custodial route because despite the cost, the money is actually there to ensure that appropriate punishment is actually given out, which may not be the case. It’s no secret that judges sentence with half an eye on the realities of the systems they’d be condemning the guilty party to and whether they are going to actually work.

I can’t answer the above question, but even so it may just be the case that judges have enough case law around to be uncomfortable with breaking from the already pre-determined “standard” for what an appropriate sentence should be. And as the judge said, this is a guy with immense privilege, and has had everything handed to him.

This wasn’t a kid frustrated with having nothing and arguably his only outlet being violence, Gilmour chose to get intoxicated (LSD and valium, apparently, for whatever relevance that has) and spend a whole day shaping or committing his violent disorder charge. The judge clearly felt he should “know better” and said as much, and in that mind set is unlikely to desire to be lenient.

47. “Just saying.”

You’re not saying anything that matters though, to be respectfully blunt. All of these things are irrelevant, as the convoy has not courted being attacked nor has it done anything illegal itself. As I say “She was asking for it” is not a defense.

“Secondly I agree that protest should be peaceful, I have been a pacifist all my life and all my protesting has been of the peaceful type, just wish those on the other sides [police and security] had always been so minded!”

And again, this is a separate point. There is a very slight, given that it doesn’t appear that Gilmour was actually directly involved in any police altercations before the royal convoy, that you could argue the events of officers elsewhere provoked his moral sensibilities…but the reality is that aside from what some heavy handed and brutal officers were doing else where, Gilmour did what he did of his own accord. I’m all for (and have been EXTREMELY vocal about) severely curtailing what the police are able to do in the future, and bringing those that committed crimes against innocent protestors to justice…but that whole subject is almost entirely separate from that of Gilmour.

Arguably the other case sentenced by this judge, for 12 months for the kid throwing stuff at police, shows that a more direct provocation and involvement by the police in the disorder lessens the severity of the sentence. However again I don’t know the ruling on that particular case so that is just supposition by myself 🙂

“Too much of the media is now more concerned with the story of this court case rather than the cause of the original protests.”

And that is the problem of those like Gilmour, who are either too wreckless, too ignorant or too down right stupid to understand that what they do panders to a media establishment that has no interest in a truly balanced news report, and undermines the whole movement. Those that are angry about the police, the cuts, etc, should also be angry at Gilmour for completely tarnishing, and taking the wind from the sails of, what could have been a poignant protest.

“This is just another example of sentencing based on deterrence of protest.”

Rubbish, it’s a sentencing based on deterrence of violently protesting.

53. Leon Wolfson

Lee;

You are of course entitled to have an opinion that that’s the case. I disagree.

Stating your opinion as a fact just makes me think you’re in agreement with the Tory goal of suppressing protest. You will always have some violent elements at large protests, that you support the view that this takes away from the peaceful protest underscores this.

This is a piss-poor piece of work even by Liberal Conspiracy’s standards.

“This is just another example of sentencing based on deterrence of protest.”

Rubbish, it’s a sentencing based on deterrence of violently protesting.

Yer both right. I don’t think anyone believes Charlie would’ve got this sentence for drunkenly fucking up in Oxford on a club night – either Bullingdon or a boy from Blackbird Leys at the Zodiac on a Saturday (non-student night, in my day – may have changed, in which case switch in local pub). He got a harsher sentence than a boy who fucked the town while pissed-up, whether that’s a posh boy or a common boy.

I don’t think that’s right or fair, but it’s probably in the interests of protest marchers (never been my thing) that it *is* viewed as right, will deter troublemakers from crashing them.

“You will always have some violent elements at large protests, that you support the view that this takes away from the peaceful protest underscores this.”

I don’t “support the view”, I think that the evidence of how the media have reported various protests is absolute proof that what I’m saying is the reality of the matter!

Just look at the last major protest…no violence of any note, and the news coverage remained entirely on the cause at hand. Previous protests, with violence, news coverage remained entirely on the violence and stand offs.

What is para 4 supposed to communicate? It’s stuck in the middle of the article with no supporting information.

If the cunt who wrote this article is really suggesting that yelling ‘kill the police’ is worthy of 12 months in jail, he should remind himself what free speech is about, and note the high burden of proof for crimes of incitment.

I expect he’ll just be pleased to see someone who caused no actual harm to anyone go to jail for 16 months.

I have to say some of the disgust from liberals on this is a bit poor. I was there the day Gilmour perpetrated his crimes and I can tell you for a fact that he was out of control. When the police first kettled us, before the violence/vandalism had started, Gilmour picked up half a paving slab (which must have weighed 5-10kg) and hurled it towards the police who had about 100-200 protesters in front of them. It was incredibly lucky that he didn’t seriously injure someone, possibly even kill someone. At this point I told him to calm down or he was going to hurt someone and get arrested. At which point he told me to “f*ck off” and started to tear down some fencing. I’m shocked he managed to last the day without getting arrested.

“If the cunt who wrote this article is really suggesting that yelling ‘kill the police’ is worthy of 12 months in jail,”

Why thankyou, you’re very endearing 😉

The 4th paragraph was, in my original version, preceded by some more “…” to indicate that it was meant to be examples of the sentencing history for this crime.

However your jumping to conclusions is olympic standard. I have at no point said I believe that he deserves to be in jail, nor that of the person from several years ago shouting “Kill the Bill”. What I’m talking about is the simple logic of how the law works.

There are those claiming that this is some kind of political conspiracy, that the sentencing is nothing to do with the crime and everything to do with having a Tory government. This is nonsense, the sentencing is entirely within the parameters of what the law would normally issue.

You can both not like the sentence, but realise that it’s a perfectly normal and non-controversial sentence at the same time.

I kind of thought that those around here like you, Ciaran, would be a little different from the knee jerking Mail-esque readers…I never really contemplated just how similar you’d be in your lack of applying reason 🙂

Watchman, you seem to be attaching great weight to the identity – some may say ‘importance’, which I would find ironic – of the passengers of the vehicle. Maybe it’s because I’m a staunch anti-monarchist, but I don’t see it any more serious a crime because it was ol’ big ears and his missus that if it were a member of the proletariat. If the judge did go so rough on mr Gilmour because the future King was the recipient of the ‘violence’ (which we may differ in our definition of), then that is wholly archaic and draconian.

Regarding this bin. What kind of bin was it? Big enough to crush a car and its passengers? Must have been a bloody big bin. Forgive me for sounding flippant, but I am honestly intrigued.

49 Tim J
“She was wearing a short skirt, M’lud, and had been drinking.”

Lee: ” 47. “Just saying.”
You’re not saying anything that matters though, to be respectfully blunt. All of these things are irrelevant, as the convoy has not courted being attacked nor has it done anything illegal itself. As I say “She was asking for it” is not a defense.”

Actually, Tim and Lee, I think you are both being incredibly blase, mixing up these two things! I am saying that, however you look it, demo or no demo, does it make any sense at all that the heir to the throne was out in a busy London throughfare in a car that was not really adequately as protected as it could be, on its way to a known [and advertised as it were] public appointment for him when the security threat was at a high status? Of course if it had not been for the events of that day it would not have been in the next day’s newspapers that the royal couple had been in a non-armour plated car without bullet proof glass which incidentally from the pictures that appeared in the nespapers and on TV did not seem to be darkened either. THAT WAS A SECURITY RISK. The fact that Charlie Gilmour threw a bin at the car, any car, was wrong and as I said before, deserved punishment. But the Royal Protection Squad, by passing off the blame on CG neatly deflected the fact that our royals are driving around with no more protection than Mr Average. In fact less, because I believe protestors were able to open the door at one point? With the central locking on our car that couldn’t be done! So that was what I was ‘just saying’ and to be blunt in return, I do think it matters – not least because I don’t want my taxes going on another royal funeral.

““Secondly I agree that protest should be peaceful, I have been a pacifist all my life and all my protesting has been of the peaceful type, just wish those on the other sides [police and security] had always been so minded!”

And again, this is a separate point. There is a very slight, given that it doesn’t appear that Gilmour was actually directly involved in any police altercations before the royal convoy, that you could argue the events of officers elsewhere provoked his moral sensibilities…”

Actually this is not a separate point. I am tired of repeating to you that Charlie Gilmour [and other violent protestors] broke the law. But so did some police officers and trying to put all the blame on one side – which note I am not doing – does not make for good debating.

” Gilmour did what he did of his own accord. I’m all for (and have been EXTREMELY vocal about) severely curtailing what the police are able to do in the future, and bringing those that committed crimes against innocent protestors to justice…but that whole subject is almost entirely separate from that of Gilmour. ”

Agreed about Gilmour, and you have just reiterated what I said in my last posted comment. But you cannot separate the police and the protestors crimes when they took place at the same time, surely?

” “Too much of the media is now more concerned with the story of this court case rather than the cause of the original protests.”

And that is the problem of those like Gilmour, who are either too wreckless, too ignorant or too down right stupid to understand that what they do panders to a media establishment that has no interest in a truly balanced news report, and undermines the whole movement. Those that are angry about the police, the cuts, etc, should also be angry at Gilmour for completely tarnishing, and taking the wind from the sails of, what could have been a poignant protest.”

Of course we are, and that is what I have been saying. You are repeating what I have said almost as if you are arguing with me! Please think again before making bullets for the rest of the media to fire! Excuse the martial metaphors but I am too tired to think of any others and dinner really does need my attention…

56.Lee:

‘Just look at the last major protest…no violence of any note, and the news coverage remained entirely on the cause at hand. Previous protests, with violence, news coverage remained entirely on the violence and stand offs.”

Sorry Lee, are you talking about the 26th March as one of the ‘previous protests’. Because I remember the news coverage and the violence and stand offs on that occasion were actually mostly caused by police unfair action outside Fortnum and Mason. The actual ‘rioters’ were not arrested whilst the peaceful UKUncut protestors were. I know because I was there.

Oh and my dinner just burnt!

63. Leon Wolfson

Elizannie – Yes, and I nearly got my head broken in for peacefully protesting that day myself. One of my friends is still having treatment for a police-related injury acquired that day, actually.

SaneLynch – And if he’d got a hefty fine and community service, I’d fully agree justice was done.

What about mitigating factors such as Gilmour’s intoxication?

Intoxication is an aggravating, not mitigating factor, in culpability for a crime.

I see @21 beat me to it, good.

66. Robin Levett

@Lee #36:

My understanding is that the penalty for ABH is exactly the same as for Violent Disorder, which is why I’m confused about the 10 month sentence for the glassing of a wife. I wish I could get more details to understand why that sentence was so low.

I’d want to know why it was only ABH charged; deliberate glassing is wounding with intent, ie s18 GBH, with a maximum sentence of life imprisonment.

Can you help us, John? The article doesn’t help much, but does suggest that she was the one holding the glass.

I tripped quite a few times when I was a mere youth (we’re talking 1980s). The idea of turning up at demo on acid, or doing anything violent, is actually quite a worrying thought – there’s the potential to really do your own bonse in. Clearly, Mr Gilmour hasn’t read Timothy Leary’s guide. This is not hippy shit — Timothy was very experienced with psychedelic drugs. It’s a bad idea to just drop a tab whenever. Traumatic experiences can be amplified many times by the experience of LSD, with potential long term implications for mental health. The guy doesn’t need prison, in my view (lots of drugs there). He needs support, before he permanently damages himself. He ought to talk to his Dad about Sid.

I read this piece before I looked to see who wrote it. As I was reading it I thought “who wrote this crap?” Then I went and saw it was Lee Griffin… our very own troll defender, and it all made sense.

“Attacking a police officer by throwing bottles – 10 months
Encouraging others to KILL police officers – 12 months”

Murdoch and Blair lied us into a war which killed a million people. How many years will they get?

This was a political show trial for a puny state that needs to flex it’s mussels. And as usual the corporate state needs to protect it’s private army. (sorry, right wing police force that take bungs for right wing newspapers)

69. Tom (iow)

@66 ‘Wounding with intent’ is short for wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm (contrary to s.18 Offences Against the Person Act), not wounding with intent to wound. Wounding with intent to wound alone, i.e. maliciously wounding, is an offence under s.20.

Presumably in the case in point an intent to cause grievous bodily harm was not present or not proved.

70. the a&e charge nurse

He was crazy to throw a bin at an armour plated vehicle – redoing the paint work must have cost thousands (of taxpayers money?/

There are a number of elements to this.

(Disclaimer: despite my posting name, I have no involvement in the judicial system)

Firstly the defendant himself and his actions. Gilmour was quite clearly ripped to the tits all day, which makes one wonder why no-one – neither his fellow protestors nor the police – seems to have done anything to stop him, or at least calm him down.

Much was made by his counsel of the consequences of a trauma in his personal lfe. That this took place some months before his offences, and that one would have hoped that his family and/or his friends would have noticed that something was seriously amiss with him in the interim and have done something to address it, doesn’t seem to be much of a mitigation. Nonetheless, I would be concerned about what treatment – if any – he will be likely to get for his psychiatric problems in a prison and the consequences of non-treatment subsequent to his release.

(I hope a previous commenter is wrong about Gilmour’s educational prospects, by the way: as he is likely to be released any time between early November (tagged) and mid March, I would hope that Girton would practise the enlightened humanity one would wish to see from an august college and allow him to complete his degree course. I can’t see any purpose in denying him that possibility except raw vengeance).

His attempt to claim that he didn’t understand the significance of his trapeze act on the Cenotaph was also never likely to be remotely credible, as the trial judge correctly pointed out. If anything, it undermined whatever other causes in mitigation were adduced on his behalf. Unfortunately for Gilmour, this gave the excuse for the judge seemingly to spend a disproportionate amount of his speech on that point, when Gilmour’s actions at the Cenotaph were not included in the charge in any case and when Gilmour had apologised for them the day after.

We must then look at the sentence in the context of those for others involved in the disorder around the recent protests. Bearing in mind Gilmour’s persistent misbehaviour on that day and comparing it with the sentences on Edward Woollard (one – albeit potentially highly dangerous – act committed in a moment of hotheaded stupidity: 32 months) and on Francis Fernie (throwing two thin sticks at the police: 12 months), then Gilmour might be said – in this context if in none other – to have received a proportionate sentence.

(We don’t appear to have the information, but I think it reasonable to assume that the judge started his calculation at two years – pretty low when you consider that the judge at Woollard’s trial started his at double that – then reduced it by one third for Gilmour’s guilty plea).

But there is a wider context still. Although the offence of ‘Violent Disorder’ has been on the statute books for a quarter of a century (it was introduced in the 1986 POA), I don’t remember it ever being used in connection with demonstrations with quite the alacrity we have seen in recent months.

One clue may be in the rather broad definition:

“1) Where 3 or more persons who are present together use or threaten unlawful violence and the conduct of them (taken together) is such as would cause a person of reasonable firmness present at the scene to fear for their personal safety, each of the persons using or threatening unlawful violence is guilty of violent disorder.

“2) It is immaterial whether or not the 3 or more use or threaten unlawful violence simultaneously.

“3) No person of reasonable firmness need actually be, or be likely to be, present at the scene.

“4) Violent disorder may be committed in private as well as in public places.”

Potentially, at least, this means that anyone could be done under it for anything, anywhere at any time if the test of “using or threatening unlawful violence” could be passed. Rather like, say, the conspiracy laws, very little has to be proven beyond reasonable doubt to escalate the charge to this level.

The other attraction – and, I strongly suspect, the reason why it has become the charge du jour for the CPS in such cases – is because it attracts a far heavier sentence than just about any other public order offence except riot (which the police don’t like using because it brings other statutory liabilities upon them).

The use of this charge therefore enables disproportionate sentences to be imposed, and in this sense the sentences are political (using the word in its broader sense). This means that actions which – were they to be carried out on, say, a drunken Friday night in most towns or cities – would attract a sentence of no more than six months, and in most cases a non-custodial disposal, can instead be punished by lengthy spells of imprisonment, even if (as in all the cases I’ve referred to) no actual physical harm was caused to any other person.

They also enable certain members of the judiciary to waffle on about the preciousness of the right to protest (which – in other contexts – they haven’t shown the same concern with defending, but that’s just my BS detector in operation), and – in the light of that – to pass sentences supposedly designed to be ‘deterrent’ or ‘to send a message’. As a former Lord Justice once clearly stated, “Exemplary sentences are unjust”, because they punish the defendant for things which were not connected to his own actions.

There is a still wider context, though, which involves our system’s (and our society’s) inordinate fondness for thinking that custodial sentences are the go-to option simply because the law gives them as a possibility for an increasing number of offences, and about how such sentences may be thoroughly counter-productive for both the individual and for society in general, but that is perhaps an argument for another time.

@71

Thanks for putting all the arguments so nicely into perspective. I can now retire to watch Eastenders [more irony] happy that you have finished the debate wisely and well [not irony]

@59 Lee

If we’re talking about lack of logic in posting – I think where you go wrong is trying to slay some straw men without setting out exactly what you think those straw men are, and who built them.

I don’t think anyone is claiming that the judge who sentenced Charlie was acting outside the law – what people are saying is that he should never have been in court in the first place, and wouldn’t have been if the police and the CPS, undoubtedly with the political okay of the government, were collaborating to criminalise protest.

If your article wasn’t an attempt to defend the decision to send Charlie to jail, it needs some serious redrafting.

@73

Ciaran,

If ‘people’ are saying that Gilmour should never have been in court in the first place, then I think such ‘people’ are deluded.

It is quite clear that Gilmour’s actions were unlawful and against the standards of behaviour that it is reasonable to expect from anyone living in a civilised society. As such, those acts needed a response on behalf of us all.

The nature of the response is the central issue. A rigorous non-custodial sentence (e.g. a spell under a tagged curfew, a treatment order, a banning from attending demonstrations for a certain period) would have fit the bill and would be far more likely to be to the long-term benefit of society and of the offender.

Putting anyone in prison when there are more constructive solutions is wilfully stupid. But to say that Gilmour shouldn’t have faced sanctions for his actions is even more so.

75. the a&e charge nurse

[74] “Putting anyone in prison when there are more constructive solutions is wilfully stupid” – agreed.

“But to say that Gilmour shouldn’t have faced sanctions for his actions is even more so” – fine, so long as every other person accused of such trivial behaviour is brought before the courts as well – personally I doubt if we have enough judges, money, and of course prisons, to deal with them all?

@71

Like!

77. Mark carrigan

What a crap excuse for logical argument. WTF sunny?

@75

You regard what Gilmour did as ‘trivial’.

OK. Compared to, say, bombing yet more Arabs, or tanking the whole basis of civil society for the sake of financiers, then it is trivial.

When considering the prerequisites for a civilised society, however, I don’t think it is. Certainly there are long-term sociopaths who seem to escape proper sanction; but to say that someone doing what Gilmour did should not face any responsibility for it at all is to undermine all of us, ultimately.

The issue in this whole matter is surely the nature of the sanction. I believe the sentence on Gilmour is definitely excessive and (in the broader sense) political. But to suggest that he shouldn’t even have faced sanction at all is – to put it kindly – immature.

79. the a&e charge nurse

[79] “to suggest that he shouldn’t even have faced sanction at all is – to put it kindly – immature” – no, that’s not my point at all.

I’m saying that when sanctions do become necessary they should be applied EQUALLY to all offenders.

What was the worse thing that CG did – throw a bin – at a bullet proof car?

OK then let’s jail anybody else guilty of throwing inanimate objets around – for example, think of all the stuff chucked around during domestic dispute – following the logic of the OP these hotheads should be occupying an adjacent cell?

Bang him up. His father is known for his criminal records as well.

Incidentally, it’s good that you are all rehearsing these arguments now, as they will come in very handy when Alfie Meadows gets sent down in the near future, I’m sure.

Thanks “The Judge”, I’m pretty much in tune with what you’ve said in all of your comments, and agree wholeheartedly. This was my point with the posting, and the posting itself was a rally against knee jerk calls that this sentence was somehow a political stitch up.

Elizanne: You seem very coherent, and very switched on, it’d be amazing if you would put your energy less in to whataboutery and more in to the subject at hand 🙂

73. Anyone saying that he shouldn’t have been in court is an idiot. He committed property damage, caused security incidents and (as alleged by one of our commentators) potentially tried to cause harm to other individuals, all while on illegal substances.

I think prison will do him the world of good and it will be a defining point in his life.
The prison service should use someone like him, a clever chap by the sounds of it, to get involved in prison programmes like helping other prisoners to read etc.
More, not less people need to be banged up in my opinion, but they have to become educational warehouses where knowledge is crammed into them almost like it was into Alex in Clockwork Orange. Through television documentaries, films and music workshops. And people like Charlie could quickly be co-opted into the educational system. After a few months you could even let him home and just make him come to the prison to work off his time during the day, teaching prisoners.

If anyone saw the the BBC series ”The Scheme” about a housing estate in Scotland, you will have seen that the only place that the heroin adicts get a chance to get clean and dry out is in prison. So it’s good to get them off the street IMO. It’s just that their time there is not being used properly.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00sjs1t

84. Leon Wolfson

@83 – If by “the world of good”, you mean “ensure he goes back there on a regular basis”, certainly. Prison is, by and large, an expensive way to generate crime.

@81 – And at that point, I and a LOT of other people start refusing to help the police with anything, period. Crossing the road to avoid walking by them, etc. If they can get away with beating up people, I’ll treat them in the same way I do gangers.

85. Robin Levett

@Tom #69:

@66 ‘Wounding with intent’ is short for wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm (contrary to s.18 Offences Against the Person Act), not wounding with intent to wound. Wounding with intent to wound alone, i.e. maliciously wounding, is an offence under s.20.

Presumably in the case in point an intent to cause grievous bodily harm was not present or not proved.

I do remember the criminal law I was taught 30-odd years ago – or at least the highlights of it.

The charge was ABH, not s20 GBH, which one would have thought would be the *minimum* charge where there was breaking of the skin.

16 stitches to the face however is GBH in anyone’s money; deliberately causing them is s18 wounding with intent.

If meadows gets found guilty (I’ve only just heard that he was even being charged, thanks to this thread) then my stance will be the extremely different from this. While I feel that Charlie Gilmour is absolutely due a conviction, though probably not for violent disorder, and that as with many short term sentences that it’d be better served as suspended or as community service-like…I cannot feel anything other than anger at the idea that Meadows is being charged with anything.

87. willcommon

You’re disgusting!

You know that these sentences are political. Worse happens every saturday night with no custodial sentencing.

Charlie Gilmour hurt nobody, yet because what he did was on a political protest he gets this outrageous sentencing. the sentencing for disorder on political protest is harsher in Britain than anywhere else in Europe. What about Frank Fernie who had his life ruined for throwing a small wooden stick at the fully protected riot police?

A Liberal is someone who worships power without ever having it.

You would have been lining up to urge the hanging of the poll tax rioters. Typical self serving poison.

Traitor!

One more martyr in the name of the cause.

We won’t forget you Charlie!

If there’s any justice in the world, then in 20 years time we’ll be tearing down a statue of the ghastly Charles and Camilla, and raising one of Mr Gilmour in its stead.

Ok, so throwing sticks around and not hurting anyone 16 months. What about killing people?

You’ll be arguing that the cop that killed Ian Tomlinson should be getting about 150 years then

Will you be arguing for that? Or will you be sucking up to authority and power again.

Pathetic!

90. Man in the street

16 months is a small price to pay considering Gilmour senior was responsible for Pink Floyd.

@ 84

Prison is, by and large, an expensive way to generate crime.

That’s because the prison regime and education system is all wrong.

You only have to look at Feltham Young Offenders Institute. This documentary shows them encouraging them to make hip hop and rapping music inside the jail.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbb4mtGaD-M&feature=related

That hip hop mentality that glorifies the gangster lifestyle is the thing that got them into prison in the first place. They shouldn’t give them radios so that they can listen to their ”grime music” (or whetever its called), they should only be able to get Radio 4 and the BBC World Service. They might learn something.

And no watching Jeremy Kyle and reality TV.
Only a prison cable service showing documentaries, films, and educational stuff. The History Channel, lots of news. Al Jazeera, and the foriegn news programmes in english. After a few months they would be discussing what was going on in Syria and the Arab Spring. Show them that new Rageh Omaar series on Muhammad.

Oh …. and make them talk properly too.

92. Flowerpower

16 months is a small price to pay considering Gilmour senior was responsible for Pink Floyd.

Not his actual father (that’s some old etonian actor/poet bloke). Gilmour adopted him.

93. the a&e charge nurse

[86] “If meadows gets found guilty (I’ve only just heard that he was even being charged, thanks to this thread) then my stance will be the extremely different from this ..… I cannot feel anything other than anger at the idea that Meadows is being charged with anything” – apart from the dreadful injury suffered by Alfie Meadows was his behaviour very different from that of Charlie Gilmour, or in fact thousands of other protestors at the more excitable end of the spectrum.

Inspector Gadget offers x3 possible scenarios

Option 1.
Alfred was indeed vilely cleaved asunder by a wicked police baton strike BUT, call me old-fashioned, he WAS trying to violently assault a police officer at the time. And they can prove it. Gulp.

Option 2.
Alfred was indeed cruelly injured on the front line resisting the brutal English State BUT, heaven forbid, NOT by the uniformed henchmen of the Met police. By someone else. Someone else with a lump of concrete, a student loan and a poor aim.

Option 3.
Alfie Meadows was brutally beaten with a police baton for no reason, BUT despite the presence of thousands of bystanders and media photographers, there is no footage and there are no witnesses.
http://inspectorgadget.wordpress.com/2011/06/08/i-hope-there-is-justice-for-alfie-meadows/

Like Charlie, Alfie either did or didn’t break the law – so any custodial sentence would be “fair” if we accept the logic of the OP?

Lee:
“Elizanne: You seem very coherent, and very switched on, it’d be amazing if you would put your energy less in to whataboutery and more in to the subject at hand ”

If this is a compliment, thank you, but try my blog at http://www.rephidimstreet.blogspot.com to see where a lot of my energy is spent! And the trouble is that at my great age what you call ‘whataboutery’ I call cynicism!

I am pleased that you think I am coherent, as a retired lecturer it does at least reassure me that all those years were not mis-spent!

@90

Dave Gilmour joined when Syd Barrett was becoming ill. He was a latecomer to the band to fill in on tour, so your argument, like so much righty trash, fails in the face of the facts.

@87

“You know that these sentences are political. Worse happens every saturday night with no custodial sentencing.”

Well I, for one, made exactly that point.

“You would have been lining up to urge the hanging of the poll tax rioters.”

Hyperbole 101, anyone? Do get over yourself. You armchair faux-anarchists are so predictable.

@88

Sorry, can’t use this. (signed) The Editor, Punch.

@91

I’m amused by the thought of prisons being designed to turn out middle-class, fake-libertarian pseudo-intellectuals (of the type who read Spiked Online, for example).

No, scrub that – I’m terrified by the thought. We have enough trouble with the ones we have.

@93

Are there any reliable accounts of how Meadows got injured? I’d genuinely like to know.

97. the a&e charge nurse

[96] “Are there any reliable accounts of how Meadows got injured” – not sure, so far I have only read conflicting reports, but in the context of this discussion it is only “fair” that he is flung into the cell next to CG if found guilty of “violent disorder”.

If you really want to compare sentences. Google Nathaniel Pope bus assault and have a look at what actually assaulting some one gets. This sentence does seem pretty harsh considering I assume that he has no previous.

he has been sentenced to 16 months in prison (which, we all know, will only end up being 8 or so).

Maybe you’ll offer to do the second half of his sentence.

Actions against state authority are always likely to be treated as more violent than they really are, thus this piece has false equivalence written all over it.

@96 – heaven forbid. Who’s talking about that? Prison should be a forced education camp. Where the only TV and radio they can get is educational. Classic films and documentaries. And music workshops not about hip hop, but about the history of music in all its forms. Pop, jazz, classical, rock and roll and various styles of music from different parts of the world. Anyone who does more than six months in prison should come out knowing who Oum Kulthum was.
Because they’d seen documentaries about her and had a classroom lecture about that period in Egyptian history.
http://www.bing.com/search?q=oum+kalthoum&src=IE-SearchBox&FORM=IE8SRC

But Feltham has them acting out Hip Hop and rapping songs.
In this Evening Standard article, it talks of young people who want to go to Feltham, to ”earn their stripes” as it’s seen as a badge of honor. And the guy had seen the documentary I linked to about Feltham and thought it looked like a good place to experience.
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23758483-feltham-young-offenders-institute-is-a-badge-of-honour-its-more-of-a-test-than-gcses.do

I find it slightly humorous how the author has attempted to change his argument completely through the comments, in tune what other, ostensibly more conscientious and enlightened commenters have said. His original argument, there for all to see, was that those bemoaning the sentence handed down to the defendant are wrong for doing so as the judge sentenced him within the guidelines of the law. This is simplistic, infantile and even pedantic. I didn’t see a single person arguing that the judge had acted ultra vires, or given a punishment that was not permitted by the rules prescribed at law that circumvent a judge from acting arbitrarily. I believe the only reason that this piece attracted so many commenters was because of the clear contradiction of this page being under the guise of an enlightened liberal cynic, but producing pieces that could have fallen out of the Daily Mail. This blog was flagged up to me by an expose page on Twitter. I haven’t bothered to read any other pieces of his work but, based solely on this simple-minded garbage, I don’t think I will!

102. Merrymaker

Writing as a retired magistrate I can add something about the sentencing process.
First, violent disorder is an ‘either way’ offence. That means it can be dealt with in either the Magistrates Court (maximum sentence six months), or in the Crown Court (maximum sentence 5 years). This case was dealt with at the Crown Court because, either the outline of the events presented to them indicated an offence too serious for them to deal with so the magistrates declined jurisdiction, or because Mr Gilmour opted for Crown Court jurisdiction. I suspect the first. At the Crown Court he pleaded guilty so the sentencing process began. The Judge has to choose a starting point. The maximum for violent disorder is 5 years. The maximum is reserved for a person who goes to trial (ie pleads not guilty), and is judged to have created maximum harm by his offence, and to bear maximum culpability for that offence. I deduce that the Judge started at two years – indicating that he had already discounted harm and culpability. Next Gilmour pleaded guilty so his sentence was reduced by one third to 16 months. Now the question arises can this figure be reduced or increased by aggravating and mitigating factors relating to the nature of the offence? Since none of us was in court we do not know the full extent of the defence pleas in mitigation, nor the prosecution counter pleas in aggravation. However, they balanced out. Finally, the judge will have considered whether there were any personal factors that needed to be taken into account. Finally, Gilmour has the right to appeal his sentence if his counsel think the sentencing judge got it wrong. It seems to me that Gilmour’s sentence is quite justifiable by the sentencing process. However, if Ken Clarkes suggestion about suspended sentences had not been rubbished (at present, only sentences of 12 months or less can be suspended), then this would have been a good case for suspension.

“Like Charlie, Alfie either did or didn’t break the law – so any custodial sentence would be “fair” if we accept the logic of the OP?”

If it turns out that he actually committed a crime, then of course the sentence would be fair under the law, if it was within the appropriate range such as Mr Gilmour’s sentence, however the charge itself would not be, unlike Mr Gilmour’s.

I’d more be angry because I *don’t* believe the actions of Gilmour are comparable to many of those otherwise kettled, corralled and provoked into their more primal urges.

“Inspector Gadget offers x3 possible scenarios”

Inspector gadget is an ultimately very biased stakeholder in this whole process, I’ve no doubt that where absolute evidence is obtained the blog owner would completely sit with that evidence…until that time they lean everything to their preferential outcome.

I prefer an occums razor approach, which is born from the actions and stories of the day of Ian Tomlinson’s death, if Alfie had been hit by a missile thrown by protesters then a) someone that wasn’t involved aside from their attendance would have spoke up to the otherwise and b) the MANY pro-police media (including media that have clearly been with the police in their pocket, as we now know) would have found those voices, however small.

The fact that the rumours haven’t come to anything suggests it’s more than likely that they’re as real a statement as the police’s “protesters were trying to stop us give Ian Tomlinson medical treatment” newspaper claim.

That nothing else has been said from Meadow’s side is less unusual, there’s an official complain going on, and if his lawyer team are worth their salt then they’ll have Meadows under control to not sabotage any potential further action.

“I am pleased that you think I am coherent, as a retired lecturer it does at least reassure me that all those years were not mis-spent!”

You’re just frustrating, as you don’t engage with the points being made, but deflect to situationally linked, but still irrelevant, issues. 😉 What should be done of the police, how the security forces should do things different…these are irrelevant to the subject at hand. If it’s cynicism then it’s misplaced as all it does is attempt to avoid the subject at hand. The subjects are not mutually exclusive, I don’t need to both agree the sentence is fair rather than political, and also at the same time think the police should not be acted against for their part in the day’s violence.

87. Lol.

“Actions against state authority are always likely to be treated as more violent than they really are, thus this piece has false equivalence written all over it.”

Well it’s only a matter of opinion as to how wrong it is to treat violent actions against the state as more serious than other actions, or to treat group violent action (which is what this law is really about) as more serious than singular violent action. I suspect we’ll differ on opinion on that particular one.

But your point is rather moot, as if your problem is with the sentencing guidelines, which have existed for decades, then take that up with your MP. I just hope you don’t cry “political stitch up” such as some others seem to wish to do.

“His original argument, there for all to see, was that those bemoaning the sentence handed down to the defendant are wrong for doing so as the judge sentenced him within the guidelines of the law. ”

And that hasn’t changed.

Thanks for the insight Merrymaker, again glad that I don’t appear to have hit too far of the mark with my point.

105. Chaise Guevara

@ 91 Damon

“That hip hop mentality that glorifies the gangster lifestyle is the thing that got them into prison in the first place. They shouldn’t give them radios so that they can listen to their ”grime music” (or whetever its called), they should only be able to get Radio 4 and the BBC World Service. They might learn something.”

Hip-hop doesn’t need to have the whole “guns, bitches and bling” thing going on. It’s a bit of a leap to assume that because they’re being encouraged to make music which involves rapping over a slow 4/4 beat* they must be being encouraged to make music about crime and violence.

Blaming hip-hop and prescribing the Archers as a cure frankly makes you sound like an out-of-touch fuddy-duddy, one of those guys who’s frightened of anything unfamiliar that young people like.

*I suspect that really they’re being encouraged to make whatever kind of music, and that hip hop is just popular.

106. Charlieman

@ 91 Damon: “That hip hop mentality that glorifies the gangster lifestyle is the thing that got them into prison in the first place. They shouldn’t give them radios so that they can listen to their ”grime music” (or whetever its called), they should only be able to get Radio 4 and the BBC World Service. They might learn something.”

Recall, Damon, that the stars who sell hip hop recordings are capitalists. And to become capitalists, they have to reject gangsterism.

107. Leon Wolfson

@103 – Afaik, not really. Given the blatant illegality of Kettling, the “crime” he’s accused of committed to escape is clearly self-defence.

108. the a&e charge nurse

[106] “stars who sell hip hop recordings are capitalists. And to become capitalists, they have to reject gangsterism” – those who took out Biggy Smalls and Tupac Shakur might disagree?

“Shakur was wounded in the 1994 incident, but recovered. Two years later, he was killed in a second shooting during the notorious “East-West-Coast conflict” of the 1990s, which pit artists from a Los Angeles record label, Death Row, against performers loyal to a New York rival, Bad Boy Entertainment”.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/prisoner-confesses-to-shooting-tupac-two-years-before-murder-2298714.html

Then there was ‘Fat tone’ who was gunned down in Vagas – “his death follows the fatal shooting of Mac Dre, a West Coast rapper, in Kansas City in November 2004. Dre’s murder remains unsolved. KMBC’s Peggy Breit reported that some people in the rap world are speculating that Fat Tone was shot for revenge of Mac Dre. Fat Tone’s name had been mentioned in hip hop magazines and Web sites as a possible suspect in Dre’s shooting”.
http://www.rapz.de/forum/index.php?topic=18418.0

Not the sort of existential violence one normally associates with psychedelic pomp rockers like Pink Floyd?

Chaise Guevara and Charlieman, did you see the article I linked to at #100?

On the surface Mick, whose nickname is “the punisher” and whom I meet on three separate occasions, is an articulate teenager who exudes confidence and charisma. He is black of Caribbean descent, born in London, the third of six siblings from a broken home and “admires” his hard-working social worker mother but “hates” his absent alcoholic father whom he sees “as little as possible”. He was 14 when he first had sex, he says, 15 when he first smoked weed [cannabis], and 15 when he started dealing drugs. At school, Mick got Bs and Cs for GCSEs and could have had a place at a sixth-form college.

But there was only one institute he was seeking to join. “I wanted to go to Feltham, bruv,” he says. “By the time I was 16, I couldn’t wait to get banged up. Earn my stripes.”

Since he was 13, he explains, when he saw a Channel 4 musical documentary called Feltham Sings – which showed the inmates of Feltham Young Offenders Institute in Hounslow rapping their stuff and strutting around like peacocks – he wanted to go there. Two weeks after leaving school, Mick got his wish: he was sentenced to 14 months for 23 armed robberies at knifepoint across east London involving laptops, wallets, mobile phones and handbags.

“Feltham turned out to be even better than I expected,” he says of his 11 months there. “I had three meals a day, my own private bedroom with a nice TV, a nice Sony stereo radio, and I got a PS2 [PlayStation 2] after two months for good behaviour. I got to work out in the gym, shoot pool, [play] table-tennis. And most of my friends were there. To me, Feltham was holiday camp.

And that film ”Feltham Sings” that got him wanting to go there and experience it is available on Youtube. I think there is something pernicious in rap culture. That is a different discussion perhaps, but I think that not allowing the young guys at Feltham to wallow in their street culture would do them some good. And it doesn’t mean forcing them to listen The Archers. But it wouldn’t hurt if the only thing on the radio at 5pm was the Radio 4 PM programme, or ”All Things Considered” from the USA. And if they were in their cell they could have it on or have it switched off, but no grime, and no flipping Eminem.

110. Chaise Guevara

@ 109 Damon

The fact that one man is such a pillock as to get deliberately locked up after seeing a prison’s music scheme on TV, does not mean that scheme itself is a bad idea. The idea that anyone would do that is so bizarre that it would be understandable if it wasn’t taken into account when they made the show he watched.

You’re absolutely right that there is something pernicious in rap culture. But it’s not endemic. People like Dr Dre, Snoop Dogg and Eminem are talented but irresponsible in glorifying gang violence (it’s especially annoying in Snoop’s case as apparently he’s known as a peacemaker in real life, which suggests he doesn’t even believe the dangerous message he uses to sell records).

But your problem here isn’t rap, it’s gangster rap. And I really don’t know what you’ve got against grime in particular – I’m not into it, but I understand it’s just a sort of crossover between garage and hip-hop. It’s a musical category, it’s not defined by its lyrics.

You can find glorification of violence in rap. You can also find it in rock music and in films and in classic literature. Mercutio is all about gang violence! This doesn’t mean any of those genres should be written off, demonised or blamed for society’s problems. And if you lead a puritanical crusade against them, you’ll just alienate (or more accurately, piss off) the people that you’re trying to reach.

111. Charlieman

Poetry?

112. Chaise Guevara

@ 111 Charlieman

I haven’t read the Iliad or the Odyssey, but I bet they both have bits that portray violence as pretty damn cool.

Btw, did you notice that the young guy who wanted to go to Feltham ”was sentenced to 14 months for 23 armed robberies at knifepoint across east London involving laptops, wallets, mobile phones and handbags.”? Less than Charlie Gilmour.

I think that in the street culture, getting sent away and having experience of different prisons is part of the person’s street cred. Didn’t the fashion for wearing your pants falling down come from prison? Doing a bit of time can be a rite of passage.
I remember in that film ”Once we were warriors” set in New Zealand, the gang member father telling his son that prison would be a good experience for him and make a man of him. Just the other night on that real life TV programme ”The Scheme” a young lad gets out of prison and says he wants to stay out ”for at least a year”. And that it’s ”alright” inside, and it’s just what you do. Come out, do drugs, drink and crime and have a laugh, untill you get banged up again.

I have nothing against some aspects of Hip Hop. But not when young guys think they are living in a Hip Hop video.
You just have to hear these guys talking. Prison can be glamorised.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbb4mtGaD-M&feature=related

I’d blast them with Pink Floyd.

Charlie Gilmour’s punishment was legally defensible. Charlie Gilmour’s punishment was not politically defensible.

“Btw, did you notice that the young guy who wanted to go to Feltham ”was sentenced to 14 months for 23 armed robberies at knifepoint across east London involving laptops, wallets, mobile phones and handbags.”? Less than Charlie Gilmour.

As I said yeaterday. This was a political show trial. Justice does not have anything to do with it.

116. Les Abbey

Fine, the Gilmour boy gets sixteen months.

Will be interesting to see if Stephenson, Ian Blair, Yates or Hayman get to do any time for the obvious NI corruption of senior police officers.

les abbey Hayman investigated (badly the phone hacking) whether Police sold info happened he was n’t in charge of the police who allegedly did it,a dn this happened before Stehpensons time,

My union PCS isn’t affiliated wioth the labour party ,but it still gave the labour party my details without my permission, will mark serwotla do time aswell.

paul stephensons resigns

“Passing sentence, Judge Nicholas Price QC accepted that Gilmour’s behaviour at the Cenotaph did not form part of the violent disorder, but accused him of disrespect to the war dead.”

This man got 16 months for disrespecting the war dead!? The Names on the Cenotaph belong to men who died fighting oppression and seeking revenge on a man because he disrespected your idea of Our Country seems very oppressive, if not Draconian. Those men died so that you didnt get sent away for pissing on a war memorial, or swearing at a cop!

If this kind of sentencing is normal then we have to think hard about what ideals we think we have and how they differ from what Hitler was forcing upon us because it seems to me with every news story that breaks that these men may not have died to keep us free from oppression, simply to postpone it

“This man got 16 months for disrespecting the war dead!?”

No, he didn’t.

why on earth Gilmour was there in the first place is a mystery to me. He can afford the 9 grand rise im 99.999999% sure of it unless ‘pink floyd’ dont make royalties anymore.
Im a massive fan of his fathers work and actually idolize him but im more annoyed he gave students this image of ‘swinging from cenotaph’ or ‘throwing a bin at a royal convoy’ he didnt need to be there and obviously went there with the destructive mind set, i was there and was part of the peaceful lot and we got punished because of aristocratic morons like him.


Reactions: Twitter, blogs
  1. Liberal Conspiracy

    Why Charlie Gilmour was sentenced fairly within the law http://bit.ly/roQwDu

  2. Ian Adamson

    Why Charlie Gilmour was sentenced fairly within the law http://bit.ly/roQwDu

  3. James

    Why Charlie Gilmour was sentenced fairly within the law http://bit.ly/roQwDu

  4. Richard King

    @danhancox 'this outrage is bollocks' http://bit.ly/mWe4B9 100% ignorant pub talk

  5. Thomas Gardiner

    Why Charlie Gilmour was sentenced fairly within the law http://bit.ly/roQwDu

  6. Kevin Blowe

    not even remotely surprised to see @libcon cheering on the jailing of Charlie Gilmour http://bit.ly/roQwDu

  7. T Rex

    not even remotely surprised to see @libcon cheering on the jailing of Charlie Gilmour http://bit.ly/roQwDu

  8. A Working Class Lad.

    RT @bat020: not even remotely surprised to see @libcon cheering on the jailing of Charlie Gilmour http://bit.ly/roQwDu

  9. mark wright

    RT @jedweightman: Oh fuck off @libcon. Cheering the jailing of Charlie Gilmour. Pathetic http://t.co/XaMTB1u

  10. Rob Lugg

    RT @jedweightman: Oh fuck off @libcon. Cheering the jailing of Charlie Gilmour. Pathetic http://t.co/XaMTB1u

  11. Gareth Winchester

    Law article by somone with no pbvious legal knowledge. However, the comments criticising it have the same problem… http://t.co/yx3Tq2t

  12. Nigel D

    Scratch a liberal, find a cunt http://t.co/2nQsM56 via @libcon

  13. The Daily Quail

    Law article by somone with no pbvious legal knowledge. However, the comments criticising it have the same problem… http://t.co/yx3Tq2t

  14. The Daily Quail

    Here are both moronic extremes of the Charlie Gilmour debate spectrum http://bit.ly/nAbb2B & http://bit.ly/nXV28B

  15. Adrian Hearn

    A very good piece by @libcon on Charlie Gilmour and his sentencing http://t.co/nSqUFIg

  16. Lee Griffin

    Why Charlie Gilmour was sentenced fairly within the law http://bit.ly/roQwDu

  17. Christopher Meredith

    Very good points raised on sentencing of Charlie Gilmour here: http://bit.ly/rqUueq

  18. Metropolitan Police*

    Why Charlie Gilmour was sentenced fairly within the law http://t.co/iwnPLY3 via @libcon << Liberals get it, why don't @UKUncut idiots?

  19. Craig

    Why Charlie Gilmour was sentenced fairly within the law http://t.co/iwnPLY3 via @libcon << Liberals get it, why don't @UKUncut idiots?

  20. Marc Ward

    Why Charlie Gilmour was sentenced fairly within the law http://t.co/iwnPLY3 via @libcon << Liberals get it, why don't @UKUncut idiots?

  21. Lee Griffin

    Why Charlie Gilmour was sentenced fairly within the law http://t.co/iwnPLY3 via @libcon << Liberals get it, why don't @UKUncut idiots?

  22. Ms Cat, Andrea

    Why Charlie Gilmour was sentenced fairly within the law http://t.co/iwnPLY3 via @libcon << Liberals get it, why don't @UKUncut idiots?

  23. Patrick O'Flynn

    Why Charlie Gilmour was sentenced fairly within the law http://t.co/iwnPLY3 via @libcon << Liberals get it, why don't @UKUncut idiots?

  24. James Graham

    Why Charlie Gilmour was sentenced fairly within the law http://t.co/iwnPLY3 via @libcon << Liberals get it, why don't @UKUncut idiots?

  25. Michael Harris

    Why Charlie Gilmour was sentenced fairly within the law http://bit.ly/roQwDu

  26. David Allen Green

    Why Charlie Gilmour was sentenced fairly within the law http://bit.ly/roQwDu

  27. Gale Force

    Why Charlie Gilmour was sentenced fairly within the law http://bit.ly/roQwDu

  28. Andrew Griffin

    Why Charlie Gilmour was sentenced fairly within the law http://bit.ly/roQwDu

  29. DrunkenChancer

    Why Charlie Gilmour was sentenced fairly within the law http://bit.ly/roQwDu

  30. Charlotte Roberts

    Why Charlie Gilmour was sentenced fairly within the law http://bit.ly/roQwDu

  31. David Smith

    @PennyRed RT @libcon: Why Charlie Gilmour was sentenced fairly within the law http://bit.ly/roQwDu

  32. The Gadfly

    Why Charlie Gilmour was sentenced fairly within the law http://bit.ly/roQwDu

  33. Rich

    RT @CO20MetPolice Why Charlie Gilmour was sentenced fairly within the law http://t.co/iwnPLY3 via @libcon << He sounds like a dick.

  34. Olly Hounslow

    Why Charlie Gilmour was sentenced fairly within the law http://t.co/iwnPLY3 via @libcon << Liberals get it, why don't @UKUncut idiots?

  35. wardatron

    Why Charlie Gilmour was sentenced fairly within the law http://bit.ly/roQwDu

  36. Owen Blacker

    Why Charlie Gilmour was sentenced fairly within the law http://bit.ly/roQwDu

  37. Andrew Brooks

    Why Charlie Gilmour was sentenced fairly within the law http://t.co/iwnPLY3 via @libcon << Liberals get it, why don't @UKUncut idiots?

  38. The Partisan

    I don't think, perhaps unsurprisingly, Liberal Conspiracy have covered themselves in glory here: http://t.co/EOT19yF

  39. Michael Jones

    Why Charlie Gilmour was sentenced fairly within the law http://bit.ly/roQwDu

  40. Sally Knowles

    Why Charlie Gilmour was sentenced fairly within the law | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/6VZwZUV via @libcon

  41. Stewart Matthew

    Why Charlie Gilmour was sentenced fairly within the law http://t.co/iwnPLY3 via @libcon << Liberals get it, why don't @UKUncut idiots?

  42. Stewart Matthew

    Here are both moronic extremes of the Charlie Gilmour debate spectrum http://bit.ly/nAbb2B & http://bit.ly/nXV28B

  43. Stewart Matthew

    not even remotely surprised to see @libcon cheering on the jailing of Charlie Gilmour http://bit.ly/roQwDu

  44. Stewart Matthew

    Why Charlie Gilmour was sentenced fairly within the law http://bit.ly/roQwDu

  45. Sue Dent

    RT@libcon Why Charlie Gilmour was sentenced fairly within the law http://t.co/A1YyqT8 >> read Comment 58 – sheer luck he didn't kill anyone

  46. Patrick

    Why Charlie Gilmour was sentenced fairly within the law http://bit.ly/roQwDu

  47. The Fat Councillor

    Why Charlie Gilmour was sentenced fairly within the law http://t.co/iwnPLY3 via @libcon << Liberals get it, why don't @UKUncut idiots?

  48. Emma Dutton

    Why Charlie Gilmour was sentenced fairly within the law http://t.co/iwnPLY3 via @libcon << Liberals get it, why don't @UKUncut idiots?

  49. del Piombo

    Obv Libcon was going to cheer the Gilmour sentence but I didn't expect royalness of car to be cited as aggravating factor http://j.mp/qLRZ3b

  50. PhilipRockleyBedford

    Why Charlie Gilmour was sentenced fairly within the law http://bit.ly/roQwDu

  51. Lucy Morris

    Why Charlie Gilmour was sentenced fairly within the law http://bit.ly/roQwDu

  52. HarpyMarx

    Bang 'em up those student demonstrators post on http://t.co/v3srjxz Ur average short, sharp, shock Tory would approve!!

  53. Phil Dickens

    Why liberalism should die a slow and painful death: http://bit.ly/ogSttn

  54. Pip

    Why Charlie Gilmour was sentenced fairly within the law http://t.co/iwnPLY3 via @libcon << Liberals get it, why don't @UKUncut idiots?

  55. Aaron Peters

    @libcon also this piece is disgusting, poorly researched and possibly libelous – also incorrect http://bit.ly/mWe4B9

  56. Dan

    @libcon also this piece is disgusting, poorly researched and possibly libelous – also incorrect http://bit.ly/mWe4B9

  57. tristan

    RT @bat020 not even remotely surprised to see @libcon cheering on the jailing of Charlie Gilmour http://bit.ly/roQwDu

  58. Jay Thompson

    @libcon also this piece is disgusting, poorly researched and possibly libelous – also incorrect http://bit.ly/mWe4B9

  59. The Writer and The Professor: Truth and Journalism | search for the master copy

    […] case of Charlie Gilmour, and the way the notion that his sentence is ‘within the law’ is used to silence debate about political repression of dissent. This is Carl Schmitt’s wet […]

  60. Excuses, excuses | Sim-O

    […] for the harshness of Gilmores’ sentence, Lee Griffin at LibCon shows that te 16 months isn’t that bad… This outrage is […]

  61. Pickled Politics » Guardian’s decision to give Jonnie Marbles some space was right

    […] Occasionally I get the odd hard-left idiot screaming at me for publishing an article on Liberal Conspiracy they don’t like. Everything from detailed, nuanced arguments on why Labour councils should pass cuts, to articles on silly student protests to the last one on Charlie Gilmour. […]





Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.