Re: Another jailed for causing 'offence' : Wed Oct 10, 2012 8:21 am  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

You also for some reason seem to overlook that he pleaded guilty to the offence.

But doesn't that make his sentence even more grotesque?

Presumably he would have benefited from some form of 'discount' for pleading guilty which means the sentencer was inclined to give an even longer sentence.

Re: Another jailed for causing 'offence' : Wed Oct 10, 2012 8:33 am  

LeedsBornWelshRoots wrote:

But doesn't that make his sentence even more grotesque?

Presumably he would have benefited from some form of 'discount' for pleading guilty which means the sentencer was inclined to give an even longer sentence.

He got the usual one third discount for pleading guilty.

Re: Another jailed for causing 'offence' : Wed Oct 10, 2012 8:54 am  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

He got the usual one third discount for pleading guilty.

And what was JLC's sentence for actual abuse?

Now, I suspect that the community sentence handed down to Collins will have a positive effect (that and the damage to his career). But what it does make this other sentence look even more ridiculous.

Re: Another jailed for causing 'offence' : Wed Oct 10, 2012 9:44 am  

Mintball wrote:

Made me wonder if there was a reason he had asked for his coffin to be encased in concrrete

Along with the epitaph, "It was good while it lasted"?

Re: Another jailed for causing 'offence' : Wed Oct 10, 2012 9:47 am  

Mintball wrote:

Made me wonder if there was a reason he had asked for his coffin to be encased in concrete.

Thats the kind of thing i was talking about when I said. There are a lot of things which are coming out which there doesnt seem to be any evidence for, or seem to be taking on a different tone which has meant this story has begun to eat itself, where every remark is looked at in the context of being spoken by a highly active paedophile/conspiracy/coverup which in turn becomes evidence of a highly active paedophile/conspiracy/coverup

He was encased in concrete because for some reason there was some incorrect information put out that the coffin was made of gold and some of his possessions (like jewelry etc) had been buried with him.

Re: Another jailed for causing 'offence' : Wed Oct 10, 2012 10:27 am  

Jimmy Savile, in his autobiography, apparently wrote:

"A high ranking lady police officer came in one night and showed me the picture of an attractive girl who had run away from a a remand home. 'Ah.' says I all serious, 'if she comes in I'll bring her back tomorrow but I'll keep her all night first as my reward.' The law lady, new to the area, was nonplussed. Back at the station she asked 'Is he serious?'

It is God's truth that the absconder came in that night. Taking her into the office I said, 'Run now if you want but you can't run for the rest of your life.' She listened to the alternative and agreed that I hand her over if she could stay at the dance, come home with me, and that I would promise to see her when they let her out. At 11.30 the next morning she was willingly presented to an astounded lady of the law. The officer was dissuaded from bringing charges against me by her colleagues, for it was well known that were I to go I would probably take half the station with me." (p56-7)

Re: Another jailed for causing 'offence' : Wed Oct 10, 2012 1:53 pm  

Mintball wrote:

And what was JLC's sentence for actual abuse?

Now, I suspect that the community sentence handed down to Collins will have a positive effect (that and the damage to his career). But what it does make this other sentence look even more ridiculous.

You know better than most that it is pointless trying to compare sentencing for completely different offences.

Also, you (presumably, like me) still have no idea what it was that was said, that got that accused sent down.

Yet you still argue one is worse than the other.

Is a physical act always worse than verbal offending? I wouldn't say so. But the law is often on the face of it like this, in that you could pick out a whole host of "lenient looking" sentences for a range of varying offences, and an equal number of "severe" looking sentences for a different range of offences, and say "Look at X, he should surely have got more than Y, as X is plainly far worse than Y". It's just pointless.

Re: Another jailed for causing 'offence' : Wed Oct 10, 2012 2:01 pm  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

You know better than most that it is pointless trying to compare sentencing for completely different offences...

Indeed. But it's been exercising plenty of people on the intertubes since yesterday, so it kind of takes on a life of its own.

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

Also, you (presumably, like me) still have no idea what it was that was said, that got that accused sent down...

Indeed.

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

Yet you still argue one is worse than the other...

I should perhaps have made myself clearer. I was meaning to 'argue' that, given the number of people comparing the two, then it will inevitably appear that the community sentence was 'light'.

I would, however, still maintain that, unless it involved incitement, what words can merit such a sentence?

And then the comparison is fair. Because if one allows that a non-custodial sentence is appropriate (or at least possibly appropriate, depending on one's personal view), then what words are so offensive that they merit such a sentence?

Who has decided what if merely offensive – and what is so über offensive that prison is the answer? Who has drawn the line? How was it drawn? Why is any comment/opinion ever a crime? How is 'offensiveness' weighed?

And so forth.

Re: Another jailed for causing 'offence' : Wed Oct 10, 2012 2:46 pm  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote: You know better than most that it is pointless trying to compare sentencing for completely different offences. Also, you (presumably, like me) still have no idea what it was that was said, that got that accused sent down. Yet you still argue one is worse than the other. Is a physical act always worse than verbal offending? I wouldn't say so. But the law is often on the face of it like this, in that you could pick out a whole host of "lenient looking" sentences for a range of varying offences, and an equal number of "severe" looking sentences for a different range of offences, and say "Look at X, he should surely have got more than Y, as X is plainly far worse than Y". It's just pointless. Here is what was said SmokeyTA wrote: It wasn’t tweeted, it was on his facebook page, http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/oct/0 ... ods-jailed

Ferocious Aardvark wrote: You know better than most that it is pointless trying to compare sentencing for completely different offences. Also, you (presumably, like me) still have no idea what it was that was said, that got that accused sent down. Yet you still argue one is worse than the other. Is a physical act always worse than verbal offending? I wouldn't say so. But the law is often on the face of it like this, in that you could pick out a whole host of "lenient looking" sentences for a range of varying offences, and an equal number of "severe" looking sentences for a different range of offences, and say "Look at X, he should surely have got more than Y, as X is plainly far worse than Y". It's just pointless. Here is what was said SmokeyTA wrote: It wasn’t tweeted, it was on his facebook page, http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/oct/0 ... ods-jailed

Re: Another jailed for causing 'offence' : Wed Oct 10, 2012 3:24 pm  

SmokeyTA wrote:

Here is what was said

There is some of what was said - "Also posted were comments of a more sexually explicit nature."

Mintball wrote:

.....
Who has decided what if merely offensive – and what is so über offensive that prison is the answer? Who has drawn the line? How was it drawn? Why is any comment/opinion ever a crime? How is 'offensiveness' weighed?

And so forth.

And that is the correct argument. And identifies the correct wider discussion. The subjective answer is that a court has decided (has had to decide) that what was said was so offensive that only a custodial sentence would do. Which does get us into the greyest of grey areas - does the court decide on what the "imprisonable offensiveness" level is? Well, I suppose if there is an offence, then it has to. But the court isn't meant to be making the law, just applying it. So on what does it base its rulings?

Obviously it is impractical and impossible to have a complete lexicon of permissible and impermissible things to say. And that is also before you even get into greyer areas such as context, intention and ambiguity.

Should therefore people be allowed to say absolutely whatever they want, wherever they want, without any restriction or recourse? I would firmly say not. But if there are to be legal limits, who makes them, and how, and how does a person know what the rules are?

Given the impossibility of specifying every unacceptable phrase, is there any other way than allowing the courts to simply impose their views, in any individual case, on the (clearly inaccurate) basis that a court on any given day "knows" what is unacceptable and to what degree?