Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Religious aggrevated public order offences
31 views
Skip to first unread message
jj22...@gmail.com
Aug 18, 2012, 7:56:11 PM8/18/12
to
British officials seem to be queuing up to criticise the Russian courts. Yet within the past year English courts have been handing out much longer sentences for public order offences.
I wonder what the reaction would be in the UK if a group of masked yobs broke into St. Paul's and terrorised the clergy? Assuming, of course, that SCO19 didn't shoot them first.
I wonder what the reaction would be in the UK if a group of masked yobs broke into St. Paul's and terrorised the clergy? Assuming, of course, that SCO19 didn't shoot them first.
Zapp Brannigan
Aug 18, 2012, 8:30:02 PM8/18/12
to
<jj22...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:01b8e305-e986-408d...@googlegroups.com...
"terrorised the clergy" are direct quotes from the Russian prosecutor,
presumably?
We do have incidents like this in the UK, periodically. You may remember
when some masked yobs broke into Parliament and terrorised the House of
Commons, or later when some associated masked yobs broke into Buckingham
Palace and terrorised the Queen. No significant criminal sanction
followed these protests.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fathers_4_Justice_protests
Dr Zoidberg
Aug 19, 2012, 3:20:03 AM8/19/12
to
door"?
As for "terrorised", these would be the same clergy that appealed for
leniency from the court?
Were they happy about the stunt? No.
Were they actually in a state of terror? No, of course not.
Which British offenders received a longer sentence for a less serious
offence?
--
Alex
Mark Goodge
Aug 19, 2012, 3:35:02 AM8/19/12
to
On Sun, 19 Aug 2012 00:56:11 +0100, jj22...@gmail.com put finger to
keyboard and typed:
>British officials seem to be queuing up to criticise the Russian courts. Yet within the past year English courts have been handing out much longer sentences for public order offences.
>
>I wonder what the reaction would be in the UK if a group of masked yobs broke into St. Paul's and terrorised the clergy? Assuming, of course, that SCO19 didn't shoot them first.
If prosecuted and convicted, they'd probably be fined around £1000. Or
possibly imprisoned for a few months if the actions were considered
particularly serious.
For the record, I think that the Russian group's actions in the cathedral
were unjustified and went beyond the boundaries of acceptable protest, and
would probably have been illegal in the UK and most other western countries
as well. So there isn't anything wrong with the fact that they were
prosecuted per se. What is wrong, and the source of most of the criticism,
is that the offence with which they were charged was deliberately inflated
in order to allow for (and duly grant) a much harsher sentence than they
would have got for a simple breach of the peace (or whatever the Russian
equivalent is). That's the political interference that people are
complaining about, and I entirely agree with that.
Mark
--
Blog: http://mark.goodge.co.uk
Stuff: http://www.good-stuff.co.uk
keyboard and typed:
>British officials seem to be queuing up to criticise the Russian courts. Yet within the past year English courts have been handing out much longer sentences for public order offences.
>
>I wonder what the reaction would be in the UK if a group of masked yobs broke into St. Paul's and terrorised the clergy? Assuming, of course, that SCO19 didn't shoot them first.
possibly imprisoned for a few months if the actions were considered
particularly serious.
For the record, I think that the Russian group's actions in the cathedral
were unjustified and went beyond the boundaries of acceptable protest, and
would probably have been illegal in the UK and most other western countries
as well. So there isn't anything wrong with the fact that they were
prosecuted per se. What is wrong, and the source of most of the criticism,
is that the offence with which they were charged was deliberately inflated
in order to allow for (and duly grant) a much harsher sentence than they
would have got for a simple breach of the peace (or whatever the Russian
equivalent is). That's the political interference that people are
complaining about, and I entirely agree with that.
Mark
--
Blog: http://mark.goodge.co.uk
Stuff: http://www.good-stuff.co.uk
Hugh - in either England or Spain
Aug 19, 2012, 5:20:02 AM8/19/12
to
larger because of the gender and name of the collective involved.
There was far less attention to the president of the Bahrain Centre for
Human Rights recently imprisoned in Bahrain. This compares unfavourably
with what would have happened in the UK but of course we need to keep
them happy.
Jon Ribbens
Aug 20, 2012, 6:30:04 AM8/20/12
to
On 2012-08-19, Mark Goodge <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
> On Sun, 19 Aug 2012 00:56:11 +0100, jj22...@gmail.com put finger to
> keyboard and typed:
>>British officials seem to be queuing up to criticise the Russian
>>courts. Yet within the past year English courts have been handing
>>out much longer sentences for public order offences.
>>
>>I wonder what the reaction would be in the UK if a group of masked
>>yobs broke into St. Paul's and terrorised the clergy? Assuming, of
>>course, that SCO19 didn't shoot them first.
>
> If prosecuted and convicted, they'd probably be fined around £1000. Or
> possibly imprisoned for a few months if the actions were considered
> particularly serious.
Peter Tatchell did something quite similar and was sentenced to a fine
> On Sun, 19 Aug 2012 00:56:11 +0100, jj22...@gmail.com put finger to
> keyboard and typed:
>>British officials seem to be queuing up to criticise the Russian
>>courts. Yet within the past year English courts have been handing
>>out much longer sentences for public order offences.
>>
>>I wonder what the reaction would be in the UK if a group of masked
>>yobs broke into St. Paul's and terrorised the clergy? Assuming, of
>>course, that SCO19 didn't shoot them first.
>
> If prosecuted and convicted, they'd probably be fined around £1000. Or
> possibly imprisoned for a few months if the actions were considered
> particularly serious.
of £18.60 plus costs.
R. Mark Clayton
Aug 20, 2012, 1:20:02 PM8/20/12
to
Canterbury's sermon once.
Mark Goodge
Aug 20, 2012, 4:30:04 PM8/20/12
to
On Mon, 20 Aug 2012 11:30:04 +0100, Jon Ribbens put finger to keyboard and
little odd not to make it a round twenty.
typed:
>On 2012-08-19, Mark Goodge <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
>> On Sun, 19 Aug 2012 00:56:11 +0100, jj22...@gmail.com put finger to
>> keyboard and typed:
>>>British officials seem to be queuing up to criticise the Russian
>>>courts. Yet within the past year English courts have been handing
>>>out much longer sentences for public order offences.
>>>
>>>I wonder what the reaction would be in the UK if a group of masked
>>>yobs broke into St. Paul's and terrorised the clergy? Assuming, of
>>>course, that SCO19 didn't shoot them first.
>>
>> If prosecuted and convicted, they'd probably be fined around £1000. Or
>> possibly imprisoned for a few months if the actions were considered
>> particularly serious.
>
>Peter Tatchell did something quite similar and was sentenced to a fine
>of £18.60 plus costs.
Was there any particular reason for that specific sum of money? Seems a
>On 2012-08-19, Mark Goodge <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
>> On Sun, 19 Aug 2012 00:56:11 +0100, jj22...@gmail.com put finger to
>> keyboard and typed:
>>>British officials seem to be queuing up to criticise the Russian
>>>courts. Yet within the past year English courts have been handing
>>>out much longer sentences for public order offences.
>>>
>>>I wonder what the reaction would be in the UK if a group of masked
>>>yobs broke into St. Paul's and terrorised the clergy? Assuming, of
>>>course, that SCO19 didn't shoot them first.
>>
>> If prosecuted and convicted, they'd probably be fined around £1000. Or
>> possibly imprisoned for a few months if the actions were considered
>> particularly serious.
>
>Peter Tatchell did something quite similar and was sentenced to a fine
>of £18.60 plus costs.
little odd not to make it a round twenty.
Zapp Brannigan
Aug 20, 2012, 4:50:03 PM8/20/12
to
"Mark Goodge" <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote in message
news:njv4389bjdf3lrpde...@news.markshouse.net...
1860" or something, and it was rumoured that the Judge thought 1860 had a
nice resonance.
Jon Ribbens
Aug 20, 2012, 4:40:04 PM8/20/12
to
On 2012-08-20, Mark Goodge <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
> On Mon, 20 Aug 2012 11:30:04 +0100, Jon Ribbens put finger to keyboard and
> typed:
> On Mon, 20 Aug 2012 11:30:04 +0100, Jon Ribbens put finger to keyboard and
> typed:
>>Peter Tatchell did something quite similar and was sentenced to a fine
>>of £18.60 plus costs.
>
> Was there any particular reason for that specific sum of money? Seems a
> little odd not to make it a round twenty.
Because he was prosecuted under an obscure law from 1860 prohibiting
>>of £18.60 plus costs.
>
> Was there any particular reason for that specific sum of money? Seems a
> little odd not to make it a round twenty.
disrupting church services etc (the Ecclesiastical Courts Jurisdiction
Act), and perhaps the judge was making a subtle hint that he agreed
with Mr Tatchell that it was a bit stupid that this old law still
existed and was being used.
0 new messages