QuoteFabrice Muamba: Racist Twitter user jailed for 56 days
Advertisement
Liam Stacey from Pontypridd admitted posting the comments, hours after the player collapsed during an FA Cup tie.
Continue reading the main story
Related Stories
Bolton set for 'emotional' return
Muamba 'sitting up' in hospital
Man admits racist Muamba tweets
A student who admitted posting racially offensive comments on Twitter about footballer Fabrice Muamba has been jailed for 56 days.
Swansea University student Liam Stacey, 21, from Pontypridd, admitted inciting racial hatred over remarks about the Bolton Wanderers player, who collapsed during a FA Cup tie at Tottenham.
A district judge in Swansea called the comments "vile and abhorrent".
Muamba, 23, who suffered a cardiac arrest, is still in intensive care.
Sentencing Stacey at Swansea Magistrates' Court, District Judge John Charles told him: "In my view, there is no alternative to an immediate prison sentence.
"It was not the football world who was praying for [Muamba].... everybody was praying for his life."
Stacey broke down in tears as he was led away to begin his jail term.
As he passed the public gallery, he was briefly embraced by friends and his parents.
A second year biology student at Swansea, Stacey was arrested after his comments on the social networking site were reported by other users.
A number of people challenged Stacey on Twitter following his first comment, and he responded with a number of offensive posts aimed at other Twitter users.
Fabrice Muamba, 23, remains critically ill after collapsing during a match on 17 March
Last week the court heard how Stacey posted the offensive comments shortly after the former England Under-21 star collapsed during the FA Cup quarter-final at White Hart Lane on 17 March.
Magistrates were told police forces across Britain received complaints following the comments.
'Disciplinary'
Stacey tried to "distance himself" from the tweets by claiming his account had been hacked, the court was told.
He later tried to delete his page but was arrested the following day at his student house in Swansea.
When interviewed by police, Stacey said he had been drinking since lunchtime on Saturday and was drunk when he made the comments.
Stacey was initially released on bail pending sentence and was ordered not to use Twitter and other social networking sites.
Jim Brisbane, chief crown prosecutor for CPS Cymru-Wales, said: "Racist language is inappropriate in any setting and through any media.
"We hope this case will serve as a warning to anyone who may think that comments made online are somehow beyond the law."
A Swansea University spokesperson said: "The student remains suspended from the university pending the conclusion of our disciplinary proceedings."
Stacey is also registered as a player with Treorchy rugby club, where he has turned out for the second team on occasions.
Advertisement
More people are likely to be prosecuted for making racist comments on Twitter, says media law expert Prof Duncan Bloy
A statement after his arrest said: "The club wishes to completely disassociate itself from these comments and will be carrying out a full investigation into this matter."
There has also been a reaction on Twitter to the sentence, with Lord Sugar - former Spurs chairman - saying "Be warned idiots!," while Gary Lineker posted "Let it be a warning to all you immature souls. #thinkbeforeyoutweet"
Muamba remains in intensive care in a London hospital where his condition is described as serious but stable.
Bolton and Tottenham play their re-arranged FA Cup fixture on Tuesday evening, with a minute's applause before kick-off.
Ok, a jail sentence, no matter how short for offensive words on tweeter is just insane. The UK has officially jumped the shark.
The bolded part is just mind boggling.
I've said this before, we are jailing people for being discourteous wankers. As the majority of Britons are discourteous wankers we are digging a deep hole here :P
So Briton is becoming more inline with continental Europe?
Quote from: Razgovory on March 27, 2012, 10:54:03 AM
So Briton is becoming more inline with continental Europe?
Actually, with some exceptions (e.g. Holocaust denial laws), Britain has been historically rather behind some European countries when it comes to freedom of speech. For example, it had rather aggressive anti-blasphemy legislation and laws like section 28, which was not present at the time e.g. in France.
Wow.
The theoretical freedom of British people has often lagged the continent. The Soviet Union had a far more enlightened constitution I believe. The real freedom was derived from people deploying common sense, eg. ignoring the rants of a drunken idiot for the irrelevancy that they are.
Quote from: Martinus on March 27, 2012, 10:56:03 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 27, 2012, 10:54:03 AM
So Briton is becoming more inline with continental Europe?
Actually, with some exceptions (e.g. Holocaust denial laws), Britain has been historically rather behind some European countries when it comes to freedom of speech. For example, it had rather aggressive anti-blasphemy legislation and laws like section 28, which was not present at the time e.g. in France.
You mean like Andorra, Austria, Cyprus, Croatia, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Spain, Finland, Germany, Greece, Iceland, Italy, Lithuania, Malta, Norway the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Slovakia, Switzerland, Turkey and Ukraine?
Quote from: Razgovory on March 27, 2012, 11:05:30 AMYou mean like Andorra, Austria, Cyprus, Croatia, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Spain, Finland, Germany, Greece, Iceland, Italy, Lithuania, Malta, Norway the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Slovakia, Switzerland, Turkey and Ukraine?
Heh, apparently you can get fined and get a suspended jail sentence when you print the Qu'ran on toilet paper in Germany and offer it for sale/send it to mosques. :ph34r:
I find it interesting that the actual comment was not printed in the article.
I also find it interesting that the dude "admitted to inciting racial hatred." How the hell can he know if he incited any racial hatred or not? Did he conduct a survey?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 27, 2012, 11:26:43 AM
I also find it interesting that the dude "admitted to inciting racial hatred." How the hell can he know if he incited any racial hatred or not? Did he conduct a survey?
Well incitement doesn't have to be successful.
It's ridiculous and there's a fair backlash against it. He shouldn't have been arrested and he shouldn't be serving time for it.
I bet if it was about Jews and not soccer, there wouldn't have been a problem at all.
You people over there have significant priority issues over such a silly ass game.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 27, 2012, 11:05:30 AM
Quote from: Martinus on March 27, 2012, 10:56:03 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 27, 2012, 10:54:03 AM
So Briton is becoming more inline with continental Europe?
Actually, with some exceptions (e.g. Holocaust denial laws), Britain has been historically rather behind some European countries when it comes to freedom of speech. For example, it had rather aggressive anti-blasphemy legislation and laws like section 28, which was not present at the time e.g. in France.
You mean like Andorra, Austria, Cyprus, Croatia, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Spain, Finland, Germany, Greece, Iceland, Italy, Lithuania, Malta, Norway the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Slovakia, Switzerland and Ukraine?
Fixed the most glaring error :)
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on March 27, 2012, 10:51:24 AM
I've said this before, we are jailing people for being discourteous wankers. As the majority of Britons are discourteous wankers we are digging a deep hole here :P
Fortunately we Americans have nothing worry about, being so courteous and respectful and such. ;)
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on March 27, 2012, 11:03:54 AM
The Soviet Union had a far more enlightened constitution I believe. The real freedom was derived from people deploying common sense, eg. ignoring the rants of a drunken idiot for the irrelevancy that they are.
You believe right. There IS something called "common sense", which is a thing that Liberal Democrats have long lost.
What amazes me is that Liberals do this and still have the gall to say they live in "free societies" and chastize non-western countries that jail people for their opinions.
Quote from: Martim Silva on March 27, 2012, 12:16:51 PM
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on March 27, 2012, 11:03:54 AM
The Soviet Union had a far more enlightened constitution I believe. The real freedom was derived from people deploying common sense, eg. ignoring the rants of a drunken idiot for the irrelevancy that they are.
You believe right. There IS something called "common sense", which is a thing that Liberal Democrats have long lost.
What amazes me is that Liberals do this and still have the gall to say they live in "free societies" and chastize non-western countries that jail people for their opinions.
So we in the US are free & clear to criticize non-westerners, then :hug:
Quote from: Martim Silva on March 27, 2012, 12:16:51 PM
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on March 27, 2012, 11:03:54 AM
The Soviet Union had a far more enlightened constitution I believe. The real freedom was derived from people deploying common sense, eg. ignoring the rants of a drunken idiot for the irrelevancy that they are.
You believe right. There IS something called "common sense", which is a thing that Liberal Democrats have long lost.
What amazes me is that Liberals do this and still have the gall to say they live in "free societies" and chastize non-western countries that jail people for their opinions.
Apart from the pamphlet (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Sense_%28pamphlet%29) there is no such thing a common sense. If there is any doubt just look at the disclaimers on the products you can find at the store.
Quote from: derspiess on March 27, 2012, 12:24:50 PM
So we in the US are free & clear to criticize non-westerners, then :hug:
*groan*
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on March 27, 2012, 11:03:54 AMThe real freedom was derived from people deploying common sense, eg. ignoring the rants of a drunken idiot for the irrelevancy that they are.
I think generally speaking that's still the case to be honest. Actually reading the relatively important cases in various things makes you realise how sensationalist the reporting is.
One thing that does happen, though, is that I think judgements are made to make a point and then the courts get worried that their point is being overinterpreted in wider society so they swing the other way. So for example in tort law there's a stream of cases after the 70s that really establishes circumstances in which people are liable. But recent cases, while basing their rulings on those authorities, are emphasising that accidents happen, sometimes no-one's liable, sometime's no-one should be liable and sometime's it's just not fair. I think to an extent that's happened because the courts were worried that the wrong message was spreading. That it was all 'health and safety gone mad' and this was being used as an excuse not to do things.
I believe there's a number of cases recently which seem to be the CPS and judges making a point that in legal terms social networks are not special, or different, from the public sphere (there's been a few involving the riots - which also seem disproportionate to me). I wonder if this is part of that.
Generally though, reading cases has been a surprise. They're overwhelmingly in comprehensible prose and they generally do seem guided by common sense.
Yes, you opened a thread about the Daily Mail, this is a quintessential Daily Mail story in many ways, Marti even gave the topic the right sort of headline :cool:
ie most offensive tweets are not reported to the police, most that are are then ignored by the police, even if the police are interested the Crown Prosection Service may not be................and so on.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on March 27, 2012, 01:03:35 PM
ie most offensive tweets are not reported to the police, most that are are then ignored by the police, even if the police are interested the Crown Prosection Service may not be................and so on.
Small comfort to Mr. Stacy.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on March 27, 2012, 01:03:35 PM
Yes, you opened a thread about the Daily Mail, this is a quintessential Daily Mail story in many ways, Marti even gave the topic the right sort of headline :cool:
ie most offensive tweets are not reported to the police, most that are are then ignored by the police, even if the police are interested the Crown Prosection Service may not be................and so on.
Other than the headline (which is mine and was admittedly a play on a common trope but justified in this case, imo ;)), this is a BBC story.
Yeah, I'm pretty pissed-off about this case, I think he must have got piss-poor advice from his lawyer.
This story tells me more about how silly Brits are when it comes to soccer than it does about how politically correct Brits are.
Quote from: Barrister on March 27, 2012, 01:22:05 PM
This story tells me more about how silly Brits are when it comes to soccer than it does about how politically correct Brits are.
This.
Between this and the British guy who got put on the Terrorism list for joking around on twitter I think the lesson is that people from the UK should just not use twitter.
Quote from: Valmy on March 27, 2012, 01:29:23 PM
Between this and the British guy who got put on the Terrorism list for joking around on twitter I think the lesson is that people from the UK should just not use twitter.
FYP.
Quote from: Valmy on March 27, 2012, 01:29:23 PM
Between this and the British guy who got put on the Terrorism list for joking around on twitter I think the lesson is that people from the UK should just not use twitter.
He was found guilty and fined £1000 and costs. Though his appeal's gone to the High Court.
Meanwhile, back with the colonials:
QuoteIt wasn't all good news for Team "Hunger Games" over the weekend. Despite fawning reviews and record-breaking ticket sales, some fans of the blockbuster young adult trilogy by author Suzanne Collins were upset by the decision to cast an African-American actress as Rue, one of the supporting characters. Never mind that she's described as having "dark brown skin" in the original book.
As Jezebel notes, many "Hunger Games" viewers resorted to sending racist tweets over the fact that Rue (played in the film by young actress Amandla Sternberg) was black.
"Why does Rue have to be black," wrote one ignorant fan, whose Twitter page no longer exists. "Not gonna lie, kinda ruined the movie."
"Awkward moment when Rue is some black girl and not the innocent blonde girl you picture," wrote another user, whose account has also been deleted.
Of course, the occasion of "The Hunger Games" arriving in theaters isn't the first time some fans were upset with the casting. Last year, after the character posters for "The Hunger Games" debuted -- showing both Sternberg as Rue and Lenny Kravitz as stylist Cinna -- reactions on the Internet were equally harsh.
"I thought she would be white," wrote one fan.
"The Hunger Games" is out in theaters now. For more on the racist "Hunger Games" tweets, head over to Hunger Games Tweets, a Tumblr created to "expose the 'Hunger Games' fans on Twitter who dare to call themselves fans yet don't know a damn thing about the books."
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 27, 2012, 01:45:21 PM
Last year, after the character posters for "The Hunger Games" debuted -- showing both Sternberg as Rue and Lenny Kravitz as stylist Cinna -- reactions on the Internet were equally harsh.
"I thought she would be white," wrote one fan.
:lol:
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 27, 2012, 01:45:21 PM
Meanwhile, back with the colonials:
QuoteIt wasn't all good news for Team "Hunger Games" over the weekend. Despite fawning reviews and record-breaking ticket sales, some fans of the blockbuster young adult trilogy by author Suzanne Collins were upset by the decision to cast an African-American actress as Rue, one of the supporting characters. Never mind that she's described as having "dark brown skin" in the original book.
As Jezebel notes, many "Hunger Games" viewers resorted to sending racist tweets over the fact that Rue (played in the film by young actress Amandla Sternberg) was black.
"Why does Rue have to be black," wrote one ignorant fan, whose Twitter page no longer exists. "Not gonna lie, kinda ruined the movie."
"Awkward moment when Rue is some black girl and not the innocent blonde girl you picture," wrote another user, whose account has also been deleted.
Of course, the occasion of "The Hunger Games" arriving in theaters isn't the first time some fans were upset with the casting. Last year, after the character posters for "The Hunger Games" debuted -- showing both Sternberg as Rue and Lenny Kravitz as stylist Cinna -- reactions on the Internet were equally harsh.
"I thought she would be white," wrote one fan.
"The Hunger Games" is out in theaters now. For more on the racist "Hunger Games" tweets, head over to Hunger Games Tweets, a Tumblr created to "expose the 'Hunger Games' fans on Twitter who dare to call themselves fans yet don't know a damn thing about the books."
Didn't know Derspeiss was a big fan of those books.
Quote from: Martinus on March 27, 2012, 10:48:29 AM
Ok, a jail sentence, no matter how short for offensive words on tweeter is just insane. The UK has officially jumped the shark.
I think you missed that part where it said.
Quoteadmitted inciting racial hatred
I dont know what he said but in most jurisdictions that would be a serious charge. Why he admitted to the charge is something not reported in the article you posted. One would expect that if it was merely a "short" series of "offensive words" that at least some defence would have been made. But after having made the admission I dont see this as poltical correctness but simply the Court carrying on with sentencing.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 27, 2012, 03:45:22 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 27, 2012, 01:45:21 PM
Meanwhile, back with the colonials:
QuoteIt wasn't all good news for Team "Hunger Games" over the weekend. Despite fawning reviews and record-breaking ticket sales, some fans of the blockbuster young adult trilogy by author Suzanne Collins were upset by the decision to cast an African-American actress as Rue, one of the supporting characters. Never mind that she's described as having "dark brown skin" in the original book.
As Jezebel notes, many "Hunger Games" viewers resorted to sending racist tweets over the fact that Rue (played in the film by young actress Amandla Sternberg) was black.
"Why does Rue have to be black," wrote one ignorant fan, whose Twitter page no longer exists. "Not gonna lie, kinda ruined the movie."
"Awkward moment when Rue is some black girl and not the innocent blonde girl you picture," wrote another user, whose account has also been deleted.
Of course, the occasion of "The Hunger Games" arriving in theaters isn't the first time some fans were upset with the casting. Last year, after the character posters for "The Hunger Games" debuted -- showing both Sternberg as Rue and Lenny Kravitz as stylist Cinna -- reactions on the Internet were equally harsh.
"I thought she would be white," wrote one fan.
"The Hunger Games" is out in theaters now. For more on the racist "Hunger Games" tweets, head over to Hunger Games Tweets, a Tumblr created to "expose the 'Hunger Games' fans on Twitter who dare to call themselves fans yet don't know a damn thing about the books."
Didn't know Derspeiss was a big fan of those books.
You know I'm all for busting on self-admitted racists like Lettow, but this "derspeiss is a racist" meme is completely unfair.
He's from West Virginia, it's a given. ;)
Quote from: Barrister on March 27, 2012, 05:37:26 PM
You know I'm all for busting on self-admitted racists like Lettow, but this "derspeiss is a racist" meme is completely unfair.
Are you sure about that?
Here's a capture of the tweets in question:
http://chirpstory.com/li/5261 (http://chirpstory.com/li/5261)
The relevant ones start from '10 days ago and up'.
Absolutely heinous perversion of justice.
I dont feel like sifting through all that. Can you quote the bit that got him in trouble? From what I saw I have no idea why he essentially pled guilty.
I couple of lines of "hahaha muamba's dead" and "suck muamba's black dick you cunt".
I mean... obviously not polite conversation, but my own reading is that it's just trash talk with no real substance behind it (esp. since there's a whole bunch of other "fuck your mother's cunt" casual banter before that).
Quote from: mongers on March 27, 2012, 06:29:54 PM
Here's a capture of the tweets in question:
http://chirpstory.com/li/5261 (http://chirpstory.com/li/5261)
The relevant ones start from '10 days ago and up'.
A credit to the British education system. Hopefully his eloquence and immense vocabulary will mitigate his punishment. We don't want to put his gift for language behind bars.
Quote from: Jacob on March 27, 2012, 06:40:35 PM
I couple of lines of "hahaha muamba's dead" and "suck muamba's black dick you cunt".
I mean... obviously not polite conversation, but my own reading is that it's just trash talk with no real substance behind it (esp. since there's a whole bunch of other "fuck your mother's cunt" casual banter before that).
Yes, that's my reading as well.
I'd be interested to see one of our tame lawyers exclaim how that amounts to a credible act of incitement to racial hatred.
My own view is the judge should be censured for playing to the crowd or maybe he's just part of the growing politicised judiciary we seem to have.
Quote from: mongers on March 27, 2012, 06:48:10 PM
I'd be interested to see one of our tame lawyers exclaim how that amounts to a credible act of incitement to racial hatred.
You are missing the point. He admitted that his comments did so. On the brief bit I saw I agree with Jacob's assessment and I have no idea why he would have made such an admission. You can hardly blame the judge for the Defendant being that stupid.
Other news articles - including from the BBC and others during the trial and the Daily Mail today - say he was charged with a racially aggravated public order offence (like incitement to violence, or intentional harassment, alarm or distress) which would be different than incitement to racial hatred. But I'm not sure which articles are right :mellow:
QuoteMy own view is the judge should be censured for playing to the crowd or maybe he's just part of the growing politicised judiciary we seem to have.
What do you mean by growing politicised judiciary?
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 27, 2012, 07:26:42 PM
You are missing the point. He admitted that his comments did so. On the brief bit I saw I agree with Jacob's assessment and I have no idea why he would have made such an admission. You can hardly blame the judge for the Defendant being that stupid.
I haven't see the story where it said he pleaded guilty. The BBC story just says that he admitted posting the remarks (which the BBC called "racially offensive"), as far as I can see.
Maybe a lawyer can explain to me where to find the story that talks about him pleading guilty, in which case I will agree with you that this was probably either a stupid defendant (not capitalized, btw, in this usage), or the result of a stupid lawyer's advice.
Quote from: grumbler on March 27, 2012, 07:48:45 PM
I haven't see the story where it said he pleaded guilty. The BBC story just says that he admitted posting the remarks (which the BBC called "racially offensive"), as far as I can see.
It was last week:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-17434587
Today's hearing was just for sentencing.
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 27, 2012, 07:33:06 PM
Other news articles - including from the BBC and others during the trial and the Daily Mail today - say he was charged with a racially aggravated public order offence (like incitement to violence, or intentional harassment, alarm or distress) which would be different than incitement to racial hatred. But I'm not sure which articles are right :mellow:
It's a criminal offense in the UK to alarm or distress someone? :huh:
Interesting interview with John Cooper QC on channel 4 news, he's the barrister who recently represented Occupy St.Pauls in court.
http://www.channel4.com/news/catch-up/display/playlistref/270312/clipid/270312_4ON_twitter_27 (http://www.channel4.com/news/catch-up/display/playlistref/270312/clipid/270312_4ON_twitter_27)
So the judge had no choice but to send him to prison because of minimum sentence requirements under the statute. This guy is making the point that the number of days in prison was excessive not that he was sent to prison.
The unanswered question is why the Defendant pled guilty in the first place.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 27, 2012, 07:58:25 PM
It's a criminal offense in the UK to alarm or distress someone? :huh:
It can be:
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1986/64/section/4A
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1986/64/section/5
Both of those offences could be racially aggravated.
QuoteSo the judge had no choice but to send him to prison because of minimum sentence requirements under the statute. This guy is making the point that the number of days in prison was excessive not that he was sent to prison.
I don't think that's Cooper's argument. He lists what the judge would take into account and then says he may 'perhaps' have had no alternative to imprison. I don't think there's a minimum sentence and Cooper thinks it's excessive.
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 27, 2012, 08:09:05 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 27, 2012, 07:58:25 PM
It's a criminal offense in the UK to alarm or distress someone? :huh:
It can be:
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1986/64/section/4A
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1986/64/section/5
Both of those offences could be racially aggravated.
QuoteSo the judge had no choice but to send him to prison because of minimum sentence requirements under the statute. This guy is making the point that the number of days in prison was excessive not that he was sent to prison.
I don't think that's Cooper's argument. He lists what the judge would take into account and then says he may 'perhaps' have had no alternative to imprison. I don't think there's a minimum sentence and Cooper thinks it's excessive.
You need to listen a little further on. The interviewer expressly invites him to say imprisonment was improper and brings up the case of another person sentenced to community service. He makes the point that they are different statutes and that under this one Prison is the required sentence. He expressly says he thinks the number of days was excessive though and that is when he lists the factors you mention.
edit: In fact at about 49 seconds he says exactly what I stated. Whilst there was no alternative but to imprison the issue is the number of days given or words to that effect. You are reading way too much into the "perhaps". That is just his manner of speaking...
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 27, 2012, 08:07:10 PM
So the judge had no choice but to send him to prison because of minimum sentence requirements under the statute. This guy is making the point that the number of days in prison was excessive not that he was sent to prison.
The unanswered question is why the Defendant pled guilty in the first place.
I just posted it as I thought it interesting, given his previous position on defending freedom of speech, not that I though it in anyway supported my opinions.
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 27, 2012, 08:11:22 PMYou need to listen a little further on. The interviewer expressly invites him to say imprisonment was improper and brings up the case of another person sentenced to community service. He makes the point that they are different statutes and that under this one Prison is the required sentence. He expressly says he thinks the number of days was excessive though and that is when he lists the factors you mention.
I listened to the end. The impression I got was that he thinks it was right that he should be imprisoned but not for so long. The different statutes have different tariffs and so, perhaps, the CPS got their charging wrong in Newcastle because he was charged with a lesser offence. You could be correct but my view of Cooper's argument wasn't that there was a minimum sentence the judge applied.
If you could dig up the statute he is referring to that would end our suspence. :)
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 27, 2012, 08:28:04 PM
If you could dig up the statute he is referring to that would end our suspence. :)
As I say different articles give different crimes. None of the crimes mentioned have minimum sentences and they have the same maximum summary custodial sentence (six months). But the Newcastle boy (who got community service) was convicted of a crime that can carry a maximum fine of up to 'level 5 on the standard scale', the other two can be fined up to the statutory maximum.
But I don't know how sentencing works, so I assume that means the 2003 Communications Act crime is a lower tariff in general? :mellow:
Brits have bizarre laws. Film at 11.
His sentence appeal's been denied.
He wasn't charged with incitement to racial hatred. Rather 'he admitted that he used threatening, abusive or insulting words with intent to cause harassment, alarm or distress to users of the Twitter Internet Messaging Service. He also accepted that his offence was racially aggravated.'
The Court's ruling's here:
http://jackofkent.com/2012/03/r-v-stacey-appeal-on-sentence-dismissed/#comments
I hope he's allowed to resit this year at uni so his entire life isn't ruined by this :(
Insane.
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 30, 2012, 10:55:11 PM
His sentence appeal's been denied.
He wasn't charged with incitement to racial hatred. Rather 'he admitted that he used threatening, abusive or insulting words with intent to cause harassment, alarm or distress to users of the Twitter Internet Messaging Service. He also accepted that his offence was racially aggravated.'
The Court's ruling's here:
http://jackofkent.com/2012/03/r-v-stacey-appeal-on-sentence-dismissed/#comments
I hope he's allowed to resit this year at uni so his entire life isn't ruined by this :(
Sheilbh, when he pled guilty he "accepted" a lot more than that. Having read what the Appeal Court had to say about the facts I am still stunned that a guilty plea was made in this case. This is what he accepted when he pled guilty.
Quote18. It must also be emphasised that the Appellant has pleaded guilty to a crime of specific intent. He intended to use words which were offensive and he intended that the words should be racially offensive.
If he had not pled guilty it would have been very hard, if not impossible, for the prosecution to prove that there was such a specific intent.
The other thing that I dont understand is the submission his lawyer made on sentencing.
Quote14. Mr Hobson, on behalf of the appellant, expressly acknowledges that the Appellant deserves significant punishment for the offence which he committed. Mr Hobson does not submit that a sentence of imprisonment was wrong in principle. He does submit, however, that such are the mitigating factors in this case that we can take a course of action which is alternative to an immediate sentence of imprisonment. Mr Hobson invites us to impose a stringent community order or a suspended sentence of imprisonment coupled with appropriate punitive requirements. We should record that Mr Hobson expressly accepts that if a sentence of immediate imprisonment is the appropriate sentence a term of 56 days was not too long.
I am not sure why Mr. Hobson acknowledged that a prison sentence was not wrong in principle. The Court noted there are no prior decisions. The statute provides for prison or fine. Why Mr. Hobson didnt make a submission along the lines that prison sentences should be reserved for the most serious of facts patterns and this was the most minor is beyond me.
I am further baffled at why Mr. Hobson would have agreed that a term of 56 days was not too long. Again there are no cases to guide that judgment. Why he didnt make a submission along the lines that if a prison sentence was appropriate that it should be much shorter is also beyond me.
Lastly, Mr. Hobson's submission that a prison term of 56 days was not wrong in principle but give him less anyway is not the most compelling argument I have ever seen.
Quote from: Martinus on March 31, 2012, 02:42:52 AM
Insane.
The legal representation or your interpretation in the OP?
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 30, 2012, 10:55:11 PM
jackofkent
he he. he he.
Still blows my mind that it's a criminal offense to use insulting language with the intent to cause distress.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 31, 2012, 02:08:51 PMhe he. he he.
I love the name for a legal blog. Jack of Kent's a figure in English folklore who routinely outwits the devil by paying very close attention to what they've said. So he'll normally make a deal with the devil and then fulfil it to the letter, but not the spirit, leaving the devil unsatisfied.
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 27, 2012, 07:56:10 PM
Quote from: grumbler on March 27, 2012, 07:48:45 PM
I haven't see the story where it said he pleaded guilty. The BBC story just says that he admitted posting the remarks (which the BBC called "racially offensive"), as far as I can see.
It was last week:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-17434587
Today's hearing was just for sentencing.
In that story, also, he merely admitted that he posted the remarks. He did say that he "shouldn't have," which I suppose in the UK is an admission that his acts were criminal.
Weird legal system. Glad the US has nothing like it. :P
Quote from: grumbler on March 31, 2012, 02:55:50 PMIn that story, also, he merely admitted that he posted the remarks. He did say that he "shouldn't have," which I suppose in the UK is an admission that his acts were criminal.
I think that's just the BBC being colloquial and using 'admits' instead of 'pleaded guilty'. It also takes up half the space.
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 31, 2012, 02:00:03 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 30, 2012, 10:55:11 PM
His sentence appeal's been denied.
He wasn't charged with incitement to racial hatred. Rather 'he admitted that he used threatening, abusive or insulting words with intent to cause harassment, alarm or distress to users of the Twitter Internet Messaging Service. He also accepted that his offence was racially aggravated.'
The Court's ruling's here:
http://jackofkent.com/2012/03/r-v-stacey-appeal-on-sentence-dismissed/#comments
I hope he's allowed to resit this year at uni so his entire life isn't ruined by this :(
Sheilbh, when he pled guilty he "accepted" a lot more than that. Having read what the Appeal Court had to say about the facts I am still stunned that a guilty plea was made in this case. This is what he accepted when he pled guilty.
Quote18. It must also be emphasised that the Appellant has pleaded guilty to a crime of specific intent. He intended to use words which were offensive and he intended that the words should be racially offensive.
If he had not pled guilty it would have been very hard, if not impossible, for the prosecution to prove that there was such a specific intent.
The other thing that I dont understand is the submission his lawyer made on sentencing.
Quote14. Mr Hobson, on behalf of the appellant, expressly acknowledges that the Appellant deserves significant punishment for the offence which he committed. Mr Hobson does not submit that a sentence of imprisonment was wrong in principle. He does submit, however, that such are the mitigating factors in this case that we can take a course of action which is alternative to an immediate sentence of imprisonment. Mr Hobson invites us to impose a stringent community order or a suspended sentence of imprisonment coupled with appropriate punitive requirements. We should record that Mr Hobson expressly accepts that if a sentence of immediate imprisonment is the appropriate sentence a term of 56 days was not too long.
I am not sure why Mr. Hobson acknowledged that a prison sentence was not wrong in principle. The Court noted there are no prior decisions. The statute provides for prison or fine. Why Mr. Hobson didnt make a submission along the lines that prison sentences should be reserved for the most serious of facts patterns and this was the most minor is beyond me.
I am further baffled at why Mr. Hobson would have agreed that a term of 56 days was not too long. Again there are no cases to guide that judgment. Why he didnt make a submission along the lines that if a prison sentence was appropriate that it should be much shorter is also beyond me.
Lastly, Mr. Hobson's submission that a prison term of 56 days was not wrong in principle but give him less anyway is not the most compelling argument I have ever seen.
Elements of it sound almost as if they've come from a show trial; good job I live in a free society rather than something like the Soviet Union. :bowler:
I say the court should give that guy three free swings at his lawyer's head. :lol: WTF was he thinking?
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 27, 2012, 08:07:10 PM
So the judge had no choice but to send him to prison because of minimum sentence requirements under the statute. This guy is making the point that the number of days in prison was excessive not that he was sent to prison.
The unanswered question is why the Defendant pled guilty in the first place.
I was gonna say appeal, but apparently not. WTFF.
I'm going to Britain to be a barrister. Clearly there should be a job opening up soon.
Sheilbh,
What are the chances this guy can mount an appeal based on a claim he recieved terrible advice?
btw, I was once involved in a case where the other party did something similar - the opposing lawyer swore an affidavit saying he was suffering from a brain tumor at the time of the hearing. That was enough to get the Court of Appeal to take a fresh look. The court concluded that even if the other side had been properly represented they would have not succeeded (both the facts and law were against them) - I always thought that he they had been properly advised the case would never have made it to court.
Based on the media reports there appear to have been clear errors made. It may be that the reports do not give the full picture but what we can see looks pretty bad.
This is going to sound like a rhetorical question, but it's a real one--is there any speech that "constitutionally" cannot be prohibited in the UK, or is it really just the whim of Parliament?
Quote from: Ideologue on April 01, 2012, 12:18:57 PM
This is going to sound like a rhetorical question, but it's a real one--is there any speech that "constitutionally" cannot be prohibited in the UK, or is it really just the whim of Parliament?
Sadly no on both counts, we have no right of freedom of speech.
And as this case highlights, your right to express a view/opinion is very much at the whim of other people deciding not to get upset by what you say.
Which is why pretty much my sole political activity is campaigning for it, in various ways. :bowler:
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 01, 2012, 11:30:43 AM
Sheilbh,
What are the chances this guy can mount an appeal based on a claim he recieved terrible advice?
I think you can appeal if the advice is that bad, you can also claim for damages. But I don't know in this case.
Having said that I'm not sure the advice is that bad. There's around 3000 convictions under this crime every year, it may well be that he had very little chance - especially once he'd admitted everything to the police the first day - and that this length of custodial sentence is relatively standard. In the experience of the judge and the barrister this may have been a pretty easy case.
QuoteThis is going to sound like a rhetorical question, but it's a real one--is there any speech that "constitutionally" cannot be prohibited in the UK, or is it really just the whim of Parliament?
Technically Parliament could do anything. So it could prohibit all sorts of speech. The courts can't strike down Acts of Parliament even (though this is a common misconception) if they're against the Human Rights Act.
But our constitution's pretty fluid, so if Parliament passed a law blatantly against our constitutional principles then chances are the Courts would respond in a way totally beyond their normal powers. The Blair government tried to pass an Immigration Act in 2003 that would have included an ouster clause so that immigrants and asylum seekers couldn't have access to the courts on any grounds after a decision was reached by the Home Office. So they couldn't appeal it and they couldn't even ask for judicial review of how the decision was made. That was clearly seen as an attack on a fundamental part of the constitution. So lots of senior judges - including a number of Law Lords - said this needed to be reconsidered and the Lord Chief Justice suggested that if it did pass courts should refuse to apply that section of the law.
Similarly we recently had an anniversary of the Supreme Court (which for a seemingly meaningless reform has been very good) and the President of the Supreme Court, Lord Phillips, was asked in an interview about what if Parliament did pass a law that totally restricted fundamental freedoms. His answer was 'if Parliament were to do the unprecedented then perhaps the Courts would also do the unprecedented', implying the Supreme Court in those circumstances would strike down a law and provoke a full-blown constitutional crisis that would probably lead to a codified constitution :x :bleeding:
There is also a majority of people saying ".......thay can't do that!"
The last time that happened was probably the poll tax about 20 years back. The old rates system had a compliance rate of 99%, something like 25% refused to pay the poll tax. It staggered on for a year or two and was then replaced.
This doesn't help in cases like this of course, he was rude and foul-mouthed.....................very few will put themselves out to help him.
Don't they understand that their own right to be rude and foul-mouthed is at stake? :huh:
He should have used "Etonians" instead of "Niggers", then he would have had no problems.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on April 01, 2012, 05:17:51 PM
There is also a majority of people saying ".......thay can't do that!"
Exactly. A lot of our checks and balances are political, not legal. So, for example, Parliament can't entrench legislation - like the Hungarian government has been - there's no supermajorities or anything like that.
In many ways it is a good system. For instance, back in 1939 it allowed us to set up a totalitarian state, with the full support of the people, in very short order. I do think it can fall short when unpleasant people fall foul of an unjust law.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on April 01, 2012, 05:33:33 PM
In many ways it is a good system. For instance, back in 1939 it allowed us to set up a totalitarian state, with the full support of the people, in very short order.
I agree. In general I'm about the only person at my uni who strongly supports the orthodox constitutional view. In my opinion the alternative is, ultimately, rule by judges which is unacceptable (but naturally appeals to my classful of wannabe lawyers).
But the consequence of that is that rights aren't nearly as well protected. I mean this is a piffling example compared to, for example, detention without trial or even the position of women, ethnic minorities and gays for a long time. All of that ultimately depends on legislators' own sense of morality and ethics, public opinion and the political consequences of supporting an unjust law.
But my view is that it's still better than court-led protection of rights. If it comes from people campaigning and changing the opinion of enough of the general public then I think those rights are stronger, more durable and probably more fiercely protected.
Edit: Plus I think legal constitutionalism's fundamentally anti-democratic. It's more okay when it's used by Jefferson, but what's happening in Hungary is a sign of the dangers with it.
I'd add, if there was a pressing need for a formal constitution, then this current generation of politicians would be the very last people I'd trust to draft one.
Quote from: mongers on April 01, 2012, 06:14:50 PM
I'd add, if there was a pressing need for a formal constitution, then this current generation of politicians would be the very last people I'd trust to draft one.
You're right. But again I'd distinguish between the current generation of politicians and their leaders.
I quite like a lot of our backbenchers, the 2010 intake's the most rebellious in post-war history. I think the Speaker's willingness to grant emergency debates has, in my view, made the Commons more robust and generally I've got a lot of time for the Select Committees too (which are now elected by MPs in a secret ballot rather than being a bit of patronage for the party leadership).
I'd pay to see 'Ed Balls' on a historical document.
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 01, 2012, 04:39:58 PM
Similarly we recently had an anniversary of the Supreme Court (which for a seemingly meaningless reform has been very good) and the President of the Supreme Court, Lord Phillips, was asked in an interview about what if Parliament did pass a law that totally restricted fundamental freedoms. His answer was 'if Parliament were to do the unprecedented then perhaps the Courts would also do the unprecedented', implying the Supreme Court in those circumstances would strike down a law and provoke a full-blown constitutional crisis that would probably lead to a codified constitution :x :bleeding:
We just call it a "constitution." :P
Quote from: mongersI'd add, if there was a pressing need for a formal constitution, then this current generation of politicians would be the very last people I'd trust to draft one.
The current generation of politicians would say it costs too much money to draft a constitution, then lay off some more public sector employees while Britain collapses into a black hole of depression and violence waiting to be expressed in a revolution that makes the Chav Riots look like a nice bonfire after a summer rain.
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 01, 2012, 06:21:28 PM
Quote from: mongers on April 01, 2012, 06:14:50 PM
I'd add, if there was a pressing need for a formal constitution, then this current generation of politicians would be the very last people I'd trust to draft one.
You're right. But again I'd distinguish between the current generation of politicians and their leaders.
I quite like a lot of our backbenchers, the 2010 intake's the most rebellious in post-war history. I think the Speaker's willingness to grant emergency debates has, in my view, made the Commons more robust and generally I've got a lot of time for the Select Committees too (which are now elected by MPs in a secret ballot rather than being a bit of patronage for the party leadership).
And to some extent you're right to make that distinction, potentially the job of an MP is a very honourable one, however people who stand, just so they can play the political game an climb the ladder to power are what we suffer from.
I was talking to someone the other day, who'd be seen here as an unrelenting old hippy, and he was saying in some way he found the old system of landed/well-off MP doing the job out of a sense of duty, rather than as a career, a preferable political model !
Quote from: Ideologue on April 01, 2012, 06:27:01 PM
We just call it a "constitution." :P
We've got a constitution, it's just not in one place :lol:
Speaking of political correctness.
http://www.salon.com/2012/04/01/is_game_of_thrones_too_white/singleton/
Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 01, 2012, 07:19:57 PM
Speaking of political correctness.
http://www.salon.com/2012/04/01/is_game_of_thrones_too_white/singleton/
Stop posting stupid shit.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 01, 2012, 07:19:57 PM
Speaking of political correctness.
http://www.salon.com/2012/04/01/is_game_of_thrones_too_white/singleton/
The really sad thing is that if any "race" in ASOIAF is uniformly portrayed as brave, skillful, honest and caring it is the summer islanders. There are no cruel or malevolent summer islander characters. We have
Jalabhar Xho - skilled with the bow and falsely accused of being margaery's lover
Chataya and Alayahya - while whores they successfully keep Tyrion's confidence despite torture
Quhuru Mo and the crew of the Cinnamon Wind - are honest, dutiful, helpful, brave and skillful and have a better ship than any of the "white" pirates chasing them.
Lys and Yunkai also have sacred brothels.
It's a pathetic attempt to use ASOIAF to rail against a stale trope of racism.
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 01, 2012, 05:44:16 PM
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on April 01, 2012, 05:33:33 PM
In many ways it is a good system. For instance, back in 1939 it allowed us to set up a totalitarian state, with the full support of the people, in very short order.
I agree. In general I'm about the only person at my uni who strongly supports the orthodox constitutional view. In my opinion the alternative is, ultimately, rule by judges which is unacceptable (but naturally appeals to my classful of wannabe lawyers).
But the consequence of that is that rights aren't nearly as well protected. I mean this is a piffling example compared to, for example, detention without trial or even the position of women, ethnic minorities and gays for a long time. All of that ultimately depends on legislators' own sense of morality and ethics, public opinion and the political consequences of supporting an unjust law.
But my view is that it's still better than court-led protection of rights. If it comes from people campaigning and changing the opinion of enough of the general public then I think those rights are stronger, more durable and probably more fiercely protected.
Edit: Plus I think legal constitutionalism's fundamentally anti-democratic. It's more okay when it's used by Jefferson, but what's happening in Hungary is a sign of the dangers with it.
:thumbsup:
I saw an ad on tv today about the 25th anniversary of the Charter of Rights and how wonderful and amazing it is, and I thought yet again to myself 'do people think we were living in some despotic hellhole prior to 1982'?
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 01, 2012, 04:39:58 PM
There's around 3000 convictions under this crime every year, it may well be that he had very little chance - especially once he'd admitted everything to the police the first day - and that this length of custodial sentence is relatively standard. In the experience of the judge and the barrister this may have been a pretty easy case.
Your statement seems at odds with what the Court said.
QuoteThere are no applicable sentencing guidelines. We have been referred to no previous decided cases either in the Court of Appeal or at the Crown Court to assist in determining an appropriate sentence for this type of offence.
Quote from: Barrister on April 01, 2012, 09:25:45 PM
I saw an ad on tv today about the 25th anniversary of the Charter of Rights and how wonderful and amazing it is, and I thought yet again to myself 'do people think we were living in some despotic hellhole prior to 1982'?
I'm a big fan of the Human Rights Act, which I think is probably the most misunderstood law in the UK. When devising it, though, the Blair government looked to New Zealand and Canada as two countries with similar constitutions who both introduced very different laws of fundamental rights. They ended up rejecting the Canadian Charter method entirely and basically plumping for the New Zealand model, which I think was right.
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 01, 2012, 09:34:11 PM
Your statement seems at odds with what the Court said.
QuoteThere are no applicable sentencing guidelines. We have been referred to no previous decided cases either in the Court of Appeal or at the Crown Court to assist in determining an appropriate sentence for this type of offence.
But that just means there's no sentencing guidelines and neither side referred the court to any precedent for sentencing guides. I'm saying that the personal experience of the magistrate in sentencing, the barrister in defending and prosecuting these crimes and the judge in hearing appeals may be that this is about a standard sentence for this sort of offence.
One problem that the Commons has is that for every person who watches the select committees at their work there are 20 who only ever see PM questions, where the house resembles two packs of retarded baboons.
Not that I'm blaming the public for that, one has to have a lot of free time to follow the work of the committees. But I suppose one can at least be vaguely aware that this important work is going on in the background.
I think that's true, but I thing things could be changing. There are more 'emergency questions' and long debates going on in the Commons than I remember and so there seems to be more explanation of government policy in the Commons which is good - I think Bercow deserves a lot of credit for that. But because the Select Committees are no longer packed with party loyalists on all sides they seem to be producing more probing stuff (phone hacking raised their profile too).
I can think of several times since the last election when they've published reports that are highly critical of government policy. That's not happened before, I don't really remember many stories about Select Committees in the New Labour years except for Gwyneth Dunwoody's annual re-election :lol:
You're right not everyone knows but I think the more there are stories based in the Commons and reports from them that get treated with respect by journalists because they're serious independent works the better it is for Parliament. The same goes for MPs rebelling. People always prefer their local MP to a generic MP from the party, but the 2010 intake seem pretty serious, not many seem to be careerists. We've probably got the most independent Commons in the post-war era, I think precisely because the reputation had fallen so low, and if that continues I think it's only a good thing. But it'll take a while for that to be clear on a general level, as opposed to lots of people liking their MP.
Edit: Also I think elected mayors for big cities could be really good for politics in this country. Though personally I can't wait for 2016 :bleeding:
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 01, 2012, 09:38:26 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 01, 2012, 09:34:11 PM
Your statement seems at odds with what the Court said.
QuoteThere are no applicable sentencing guidelines. We have been referred to no previous decided cases either in the Court of Appeal or at the Crown Court to assist in determining an appropriate sentence for this type of offence.
But that just means there's no sentencing guidelines and neither side referred the court to any precedent for sentencing guides. I'm saying that the personal experience of the magistrate in sentencing, the barrister in defending and prosecuting these crimes and the judge in hearing appeals may be that this is about a standard sentence for this sort of offence.
With respect that makes no sense. You said there were 3000 convictions a year - and yet not one case was referred to the appeal court! There may be no sentencing guideline but that means the discretion of the Court is not fettered by legislation - ie it is precedent that matters. The Court is clearly making the point that they have no reference point form which to determine that the sentence was in error add to that the fact the defence counsel conceded there was no error in principle and the Court had no option but to dismiss the appeal.
The other way to look at it is that the court made its decision for unstated reasons - ie you say they made a determination that the sentence was indeed justified on the basis of prior - unstated cases. A justice system isnt supposed to work that way. Reasons need to be given that give certainty and predictability. You cant have justices making decision based on their unstated view of what is fair and equitable. That would be absurd. And of course that is not what they did. They made the decision for the reasons they gave which in part was that nobody provided them with any cases on point.
If there was a case out there that said the decision was in line with past cases one would have expected that at least the prosecutor would have brought that to the attention of the court. It seems reasonable to conclude that was not done precisely for the reason there are no other cases on point. Indeed the reason this is a story in the first place is because this is not one of 3000.