I predict a riot can now get you a 4 year prison sentence in England.

It looks like you now have to be very careful what you say or publish online in England, especially if you've had a little too much to drink.

Thought crime or incitement? Pleading guilty for a 'crime of incitement' using a computer to access a social media website sounds like a bad idea. The police and prosecution would have to prove that no-one else had access to your login information and a jury trial would be required to convict beyond a reasonable doubt.

Well they already have your IP address along with any other activity which you logged at that time - this would make a pretty strong circumstantial case, and then you would need a "reasonable" jury.

I think you may as well say fairwell now and let us know when the parole comes through in a couple of years !

Bye !

That's what happens when you use McDonalds as your meeting place,LOL!I wonder,How long the sentence would be if were in Scotland rather than England,:)

Thankfully Kaiser Chiefs weren't arrested! They're an amazing band! Everyone here should buy their albums.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-tayside-central-14481112

Potentially a life imprisonment tariff, for the charge of breach of the peace, if the case is heard in the High Court.

The maximum tariff in England is 5 years imprisonment for the charge of incitement to riot. Getting 4 years for a guilty plea shows just how upset and nervous the largely corrupt establishment is getting over here.

There is also talk of police curfew powers and the use of plastic baton rounds and Water cannon being used in England if these type of riots were to flare up again.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/aug/16/uk-riots-police-new-curfew-powers

And the full force of the austerity cuts have yet to be felt.

Of course using the Internet to spread the message of incitement to riot can also be used if publishing a general web page, the law doesn't take into account whether it was Facebook or not (Facebook just makes it easy for the Police Authorities to know what door to kick down). Now if it was possible to publish a website inciting other to riotous behavior, which was linked to Broadband accounts held by lets say at Number 10 Downing steeet, how do you prove or disprove that it was actually Prime Minister David Cameron who sat down one evening and published the web page?

BTW this is not at all theoretical but can be quite easily implemented, by those who have access to Number 10 Downing Street Internet access accounts. There are those who are involved in the current Phone and Computer hacking scandal who know how to implement this.

I don't have any sympathy for someone who incites a riot. If you don't want to go to prison for 5+ years, then don't incite a riot. It really is that simple.

Inciting a riot is not a thought crime. Rather, it involves calculated malicious intent long beforehand. At the least, it involves a mindset of reckless endangerment. Either way, what we have is a fundamental element of a felony. If you incite a riot, then you should be at least partially responsible for all money damages, injuries and deaths that result from the riot.

I'm a grown up with a kid. I am not sympathetic to rowdy youths who endanger the lives of my family. Riots are not cool. What's cool to me is a boring neighborhood with boring neighbors.

Update: thread unlocked.

-Blast

It's not a thought-crime. They both acted by publishing their incitement online. One of them turned up to take part in his "Smash Down" event.

People have died in the recent riots. Homes have been burned. These are not thought-crimes.

If you are guilty, then pleading guilty is usually a good idea. They did what they did, so why pretend they didn't?

The usual reason for pleading not guilty is to require the prosecution to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt. Every situation is a little different.

http://news.yahoo.com/flash-mobs-splash-mob-uk-man-arrested-planning-205428274.html

The problem here is that there is a fine line between thought crime, criminal conspiracy and actual criminal offense to incitement to commit crime, much of it is subjective and due to the nature of the language used i.e. semantics such as the infamous 'let him have it', which led to an innocent man being hung. One of the first tests should be if the actual criminal incitement charge actually led to any actual physical crimes being committed, which in all these cases did not.

Then there are the cases of police undercover agents also engaged in incitement to commit criminal offenses. These are never prosecuted especially when their aims are to publically discredit political activists groups, which the state deems objectionable.

Posting on an Internet site and computer crime also needs careful consideration due to nature of the publishing media simply because it can be so easily fraudulently used by the controlling authorities or unauthorised hacker.

I also get very nervous when I hear the term pre-emptive arrest.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/aug/01/police-arrest-97-notting-hill

I pretty sure that if the police come knocking down most folks door that they can make a good criminal case from anything that they deem to be an illegal substance. i.e. Esbit tabs equates to bomb making component material let alone chapati flour etc.

I think you have it right there

There needs to be a balance between people openly using "social media" to conspire to commit crime - which no one wants,
and a whole lot of other "conversational" forms of comment
including humor, sarcasm, open discussion, flaming, pot stirring, academic excercises - like we do here sometimes - etc

The problem is how and where to draw the line, and that will take a wiser head than mine to figure out.

From over here, "some" of the sentencing does look a bit over the top, but I'm not across all the details !

That's a different case, and it's still not a thought-crime. It's debatable whether it's a crime at all, and whether he should have been arrested. I think normally he wouldn't have been; he was rather foolish to try something like that just after people had been killed in rioting. (Which isn't to say I condone the arrest. There have been some prosecutions I consider wrong, notably the Robin Hood Airport bomb "threat".

"Thought crime" by definition is pretty clear cut. Publishing online is an action, not a thought. Shouting "Let him have it" is an action, not a thought.

Actions have consequences. People can be responsible for those consequences even if they didn't intend them.

I disagree. If someone drink-drives, they should be prosecuted even if they don't have an accident. Attempted murder should be prosecuted even if the attempt failed.

I suspect its all designed to keep ordinary folks on their toes and to keep the official terror narrative going, whilst the public ask awkward questions that don't have satisfactory answers. i.e. the engine core in this photo is a JT9D-7A/7F/F series - the only problem is that American Airlines Flight 175, which supposedly hit the WTC2 in 2001 was a Boeing 767-222ER which had JT9D-7R4 engines, which has a completely different design for the High pressure turbine Stage 1 cooling duct shown in the middle overlay photograph. I guess the FBI missed that one as the NTSB investigation whose first task in any aircraft crash/accident/foul play is to identify the aircraft involved and wasn't allowed to proceed.

http://ckpi.typepad.com/christopher_king/2009/09/murray-street-engine.html

Perhaps the tin foil hat will stop me thinking those thought crimes (or asking some online pertinent questions about mass murder terror crimes), which all conspiracy folks know are projected there by the flickering light bulbs of the new LED types. I think I've been listening to Jones for too long. That will be my defense at any trial assuming I get one.