[paddyman4]

(Original post by Jono404)
I think citing hatred on religious grounds over a period of ****ing years and a few posts on facebook about starting a riot are a bit different, you couldn't have made a worse comparison.

I could have made a worse comparison - I could have been the OP and compared inciting violence during a time of mass violence to crimes committed in the absence of aggravating circumstances.

Clearly my two cases are different, but if you read my post without being a moron you would see that I never claim they are equal. Contrary to what most people on this forum tend to think, you can in fact compare aspects of two different things without believing the two things to be the same.

However they are both cases in which someone is imprisoned for trying to cause violence (in Abu Hamza's case, against infidels, in our case, against Muslims and the police). The point of the comparison was to counter the notion that someone who does not directly hurt someone does not deserve punishment - a notion put forward by the OP and by this poster:

(Original post by Electronica)
This is an outrageous sentence for a non-crime. Disgusting. Everyone knows words of any kind can be intended to mean anything but come across completely differently. I personally think nobody should be arrested for freely speaking their minds.
What's next, the thought police?

I simply pointed out that Abu Hamza has not hurt anyone himself but still received a sentence greater than someone guilty of assault, manslaughter or sexual assault.

Finally, "a few posts on Facebook about starting a riot" is not the issue. I could probably post those same messages now and be fine. But doing so whilst riots were sparking everywhere and were being organised by social media attaches aggravating circumstances to the guy's crimes.

[concubine]

(Original post by Sephiroth)
I don't think it's a bad punishment. The problem is punishments for other crimes are far too weak. Violent assaults, rape cases etc. should be given life sentences. And life should mean life.

What? ALL violent assaults should immediately lead to a life sentence?




Okay. Your sense of 'justice' is just as ****ed as that of the law.

[Risserd]

police state

[miser]

It was a stupid thing to do, but it's not against the law to be stupid. 3 years is far, far too harsh for what is effectively just asking other people to commit crime. It's completely crazy the idea that I could encourage someone to commit a crime and I would get a longer sentence than they would...

[Indo-Chinese Food]

(Original post by SilverSurfer22)
Stancombe's sentence is a complete and utter joke, he did not hurt anyone and has been punished more then many of the people who actually participated in the riots

http://www.dailyecho.co.uk/news/9774...ok_riots_post/


on many occasions people who commit violent/sexual assaults get a lower sentence then he got

I remember reading a story about a young women who only got 4 years for manslaughter, only a year more then Stancombe and she took someone's life, all he did was write 3 facebook posts

the two black girls who attacked those two German secretaries in London did not get sentenced to a single day in Jail

Wheaes i disagree with the supression of free speech, you and your example here are awful 'spokesmen' that do the opposite of making the legitimate argument

Interesting that you feel the need to identify other cases which involved girls who were 'black' as if this has any relevance...

As regards your 'precious Mitchel Sancombe', i doubt he will attract much sympathy - he appears to be a run of the mill scumbag who, you failed to point out, also incited people to physically attack police officers and muslims in the riots he attempted to incite. Thats probably the reason he got jailed and good on the judge for doing so.

[Dhaal_Chawal]

Too harsh. If the riot actually happened then yeah..

[rcummins1]

All we need to do is take our prison's back to the way they were 100 years ago: bread and water diet, 4 men per room, hard labour etc. Use the savings to increase the number of people we can keep in jail. More people get convicted for longer. Sorted.

[Wilfred Little]

(Original post by SilverSurfer22)
Stancombe's sentence is a complete and utter joke, he did not hurt anyone and has been punished more then many of the people who actually participated in the riots

http://www.dailyecho.co.uk/news/9774...ok_riots_post/


on many occasions people who commit violent/sexual assaults get a lower sentence then he got

I remember reading a story about a young women who only got 4 years for manslaughter, only a year more then Stancombe and she took someone's life, all he did was write 3 facebook posts

the two black girls who attacked those two German secretaries in London did not get sentenced to a single day in Jail

Although it is incredibly stupid to post things like that on the public domain, he was communicating with those on his friends list. He is an idiot but that's not a criminal offence. The internet is the only place where true freedom of speech exists.

What will they do next -- prosecute people for having conversations?

[Sephiroth]

(Original post by concubine)
What? ALL violent assaults should immediately lead to a life sentence?




Okay. Your sense of 'justice' is just as ****ed as that of the law.

Can't do the time? Don't do the crime.

[Sephiroth]

(Original post by rcummins1)
All we need to do is take our prison's back to the way they were 100 years ago: bread and water diet, 4 men per room, hard labour etc. Use the savings to increase the number of people we can keep in jail. More people get convicted for longer. Sorted.

That or just fence off one of the small Scottish islands and drop food and water by air once a week... Stuff them on that island like chickens in a battery farm. This has the advantage of not even needing to spend massive amounts of money building and staffing prisons.

[concubine]

(Original post by Sephiroth)
Can't do the time? Don't do the crime.

So I'm to suppose that in your magical universe all assaults occur under identical circumstances, and all are deserving of life imprisonment?



Thank **** you're not the law.

(Original post by rcummins1)
All we need to do is take our prison's back to the way they were 100 years ago: bread and water diet, 4 men per room, hard labour etc. Use the savings to increase the number of people we can keep in jail. More people get convicted for longer. Sorted.

****ing stupid.



So much ignorance in this thread.

[Sephiroth]

(Original post by concubine)
So I'm to suppose that in your magical universe all assaults occur under identical circumstances, and all are deserving of life imprisonment?



Thank **** you're not the law.

I'm pretty sure I said violent assaults. There's a difference. I'm not suggesting you get locked up for life because you slapped someone who was eyeing you up in a club.

How we define a violent assault is debatable, but I'd generally put it down to serious injuries that require time in hospital.