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.