Far-right protests

[AndrewE]

It’s merely an opinion; you’ll find others in the likes of the Spectator.

He’s certainly correct however to point out that rioting is not a form of legitimate protest.

You think his opinion is irrelevant? Or less-well informed than something published in the Spectator? I accept his comment

The profound injustices and stark regional disparities that have been wrongly ascribed as the motivations of the rioters urgently and obviously need to be addressed. But that reality has nothing directly to do with the actions of people who burned down a library and an advice centre, looted booze from a smashed-up Sainsbury’s and hurled rocks at Filipino nurses on their way to their shifts in NHS hospitals.

Maybe you disagree with these and his other points...

 

[nw1]

I agree, as long as those charges are included in the charge sheet and they plead guilty or the judge/jury explicitly finds them guilty of those offences.

Yes, that is what I was trying to get at. Combine the rioting offence with additional hate crime / terrorism offences in the worst cases.

 

[1D54]

I suspect many of the incarnated will be appealing the length of sentences and by the time the appeals are heard things will have calmed down and many will have reduced time to serve. As disgusting as these scenes were some people involved themselves in behaviour that was totally alien to them and no, I'm not defending any of what went on but in the cold light of day handing out a couple of years to people with no previous does seem a little on the harsh side.

 

[dangie]

…. but in the cold light of day handing out a couple of years to people with no previous does seem a little on the harsh side.

Viewing media footage, some had basically turned into savages. I honestly believe that if they had broken into hotels accommodating asylum seekers and found them, we would be talking murder. I have no doubt they would have killed them.

 

[Iskra]

I have a pretty low opinion of YouTube historians, little is referenced and checked (and as someone who had the MHRA referencing guide beaten into them while doing their history masters this jars a tad).

He literally puts all his references in his videos where relevant. The military history he does his excellent (and less controversial).

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 11 Aug 2024 ==

Viewing media footage, some had basically turned into savages. I honestly believe that if they had broken into hotels accommodating asylum seekers and found them, we would be talking murder. I have no doubt they would have killed them.

That's just unhelpful, unfounded speculation.

I have seen plenty of instances of people confronting others with a barrier in between, and then when that barrier is removed there is absolutely no violence because the people involved don't actually know what to do when face to face with their 'enemy.' It's easy to act a certain way behind a wall, a line of police etc, but these people soon run out of ideas and words when the barriers are removed, so I don't share that confidence in your predicted outcome.

 

[1D54]

Viewing media footage, some had basically turned into savages. I honestly believe that if they had broken into hotels accommodating asylum seekers and found them, we would be talking murder. I have no doubt they would have killed them.

And i wouldn't even allow the people involved in that madness the opportunity to appeal sentences. I saw the way they were behaving and it was a mob on a free for all fuelled with hatred and god knows what else.

 

[Iskra]

And i wouldn't even allow the people involved in that madness the opportunity to appeal sentences. I saw the way they were behaving and it was a mob on a free for all fuelled with hatred and god knows what else.

So you don't believe in the rule of law? And you're expecting to be taken seriously?

It would be interesting to contrast these sentences, with those of previous UK riots with a different demographic.

 

[birchesgreen]

He literally puts all his references in his videos where relevant. The military history he does his excellent (and less controversial).

Good, he is the exception for sure, might check his stuff out one day...

 

[Iskra]

Good, he is the exception for sure, might check his stuff out one day...

He does also openly question sources and contrast multiple sources against each other to come up with the most likely 'actual' version of events. I would strongly recommend it, and to be fair I wish he would go back to doing more military history- getting involved in politics tends not to end too well for people wishing to build a reputation in any field!

 

[1D54]

So you don't believe in the rule of law? And you're expecting to be taken seriously?

It would be interesting to contrast these sentences, with those of previous UK riots with a different demographic.

Unlike those who took to the streets and threatened innocent people i totally believe in the rule of law and many of them pleaded guilty so why would i not expect to be taken seriously? Convicted people are denied the right to appeal convictions / sentences on a daily basis so why should these idiots be treated any differently.

 

[WelshBluebird]

That's just unhelpful, unfounded speculation.

I have seen plenty of instances of people confronting others with a barrier in between, and then when that barrier is removed there is absolutely no violence because the people involved don't actually know what to do when face to face with their 'enemy.' It's easy to act a certain way behind a wall, a line of police etc, but these people soon run out of ideas and words when the barriers are removed, so I don't share that confidence in your predicted outcome.

They literally set fire to some hotels specifically because they housed asylum seekers. Are you telling me that wasn't done with the intention to endanger life? We all saw grenfell and know what can happen.

 

[Haywain]

Convicted people are denied the right to appeal convictions / sentences on a daily basis so why should these idiots be treated any differently.

If there sentence is not in line with the sentencing guidelines they may be able to appeal on the basis that the sentence is excessive, but having entered a guilty plea they cannot appeal the conviction.

 

[DustyBin]

Non-violent though, which is a big big difference.

I would maintain that the rioters should get considerably harsher sentences than the JSOers as a result, though this would be done partly by increasing the rioters' sentences and partly by decreasing those of the JSOers.

We may have to agree to disagree here, but I have no sympathy at all with the JSO lot. What they planned may have been non-violent, but the consequences would have been devastating. Protests often cause inconvenience, and we tolerate that (generally) as people have the right to protest. This went beyond that though; their intended actions were an attack on the state and wider society.

You think his opinion is irrelevant? Or less-well informed than something published in the Spectator? I accept his comment

Not irrelevant at all, I simply disagree with some of them. I don’t agree with everything I read in the Spectator (for example) either incidentally, my point is that opinions are often subjective.

Maybe you disagree with these and his other points...

I do indeed disagree, up to a point at least.

As I said a few pages back, the riots were instigated by the far right, so much is obvious. But what made so many people decide to attack their own communities? You can cherry pick examples such as those quoted, and yes they’re clearly racially motivated, but there’s plenty of footage circulating of rampaging yobs smashing things up and looting indiscriminately. I don’t think racism is the primary motivation in these instances, it’s symptomatic of a range of societal issues.

 

[nw1]

He literally puts all his references in his videos where relevant. The military history he does his excellent (and less controversial).

I stil don't understand why someone who calls Starmer "Mein Fuhrer" and refers to the Labour Party as the "Noncey Labour Party" can be taken at all seriously. To my mind this guy is right-wing with a capital R: considerably to the right of Farage, for example.

Imagine if someone used similar terms against the Conservative Party just because of Imran Ahmad Khan. It would probably be considered libellous.

 

[Iskra]

I stil don't understand why someone who calls Starmer "Mein Fuhrer" and refers to the Labour Party as the "Noncey Labour Party" can be taken at all seriously. To my mind this guy is right-wing with a capital R: considerably to the right of Farage, for example.

Imagine if someone used similar terms against the Conservative Party just because of Imran Ahmad Khan. It would probably be considered libellous.

I do agree with you to an extent, hence why I referred to it as 'over-dramatic,' in my initial post. The first bit being OTT is unfortunate as it waters down the message in the rest of the video. Perhaps, that's a bit of Youtube click/reaction bait in action there?

 

[nw1]

I do agree with you to an extent, hence why I referred to it as 'over-dramatic,' in my initial post. The first bit being OTT is unfortunate as it waters down the message in the rest of the video. Perhaps, that's a bit of Youtube click/reaction bait in action there?

Though I'd probably consider "over-dramatic" a bit of an understatement!

He also seems to prefix Starmer by "mein" continuously, and the paedophilia associations made in the video are utterly beyond the pale.

I didn't watch the whole thing but got the general message from the first 15 minutes or so, mostly because he was seriously hacking me off and I didn't want my blood pressure to rise too high. "Labour is soft on immigration" and "the protesters were mostly peaceful anti-immigrationists, not violent rioters" seem to be the main messages. If he believes that and wants to say that, fine, but there are more civilised ways to do so: no need to bring in associations with Nazi Germany and child abuse.

 

[Puffing Devil]

All the sentences so far seem in line with the Guidelines: https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/offences/crown-court/item/violent-disorder-2/

And in line with the sentences handed down for the 2011 riots.

 

[Iskra]

Though I'd probably consider "over-dramatic" a bit of an understatement!

He also seems to prefix Starmer by "mein" continuously, and the paedophilia associations made in the video are utterly beyond the pale.

I didn't watch the whole thing but got the general message from the first 15 minutes or so, mostly because he was seriously hacking me off and I didn't want my blood pressure to rise too high. "Labour is soft on immigration" and "the protesters were mostly peaceful anti-immigrationists, not violent rioters" seem to be the main messages. If he believes that and wants to say that, fine, but there are more civilised ways to do so: no need to bring in associations with Nazi Germany and child abuse.

I can understand you being irritated by the first 10 minutes, but a lot of the concepts are explained more sensibly in the rest of the video so if you haven't watched it, you probably should. (That's the reason I didn't respond to your initial long-winded post about that video, because a lot of it is already covered in the video, so it would just be repetition). Obviously, if you have no desire to watch the whole thing, then that's fine but it does preclude any reasoned discussion.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 11 Aug 2024 ==

All the sentences so far seem in line with the Guidelines: https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/offences/crown-court/item/violent-disorder-2/

And in line with the sentences handed down for the 2011 riots.

Those were widely criticised as being too severe (a quick google supports that), and I'm sure many were quietly reduced after the event.

 

[jon0844]

Unlike those who took to the streets and threatened innocent people i totally believe in the rule of law and many of them pleaded guilty so why would i not expect to be taken seriously? Convicted people are denied the right to appeal convictions / sentences on a daily basis so why should these idiots be treated any differently.

Denied the right to appeal at all, or simply having an appeal denied quickly? I think we need to ensure the latter, but certainly not spend ages getting caught up with appeals that are not going to get anywhere.

 

[Busaholic]

That been said I do think this whole event has shown up the hypocrisy in us all: anyone who sympathised with BLM and/or climate protestors has gone "tough on crime" on the rioters but less so on the former where crimes were committed, while those who sympathise with the underlying causes of the riots and supposedly claim to be "tough on crime", were tough on the former groups but more sympathetic to rioters.

We're all not just capable of hypocrisy but exhibit it sometimes too. For myself. I had some sympathy with both BLM and climate protesters but still felt that prison sentences were deserved in many of the cases.

I suspect many of the incarnated will be appealing the length of sentences and by the time the appeals are heard things will have calmed down and many will have reduced time to serve. As disgusting as these scenes were some people involved themselves in behaviour that was totally alien to them and no, I'm not defending any of what went on but in the cold light of day handing out a couple of years to people with no previous does seem a little on the harsh side.

Devils are incarnate, mere humans get incarcerated.

 

[BrokenSam]

I suspect many of the incarnated will be appealing the length of sentences and by the time the appeals are heard things will have calmed down and many will have reduced time to serve. As disgusting as these scenes were some people involved themselves in behaviour that was totally alien to them and no, I'm not defending any of what went on but in the cold light of day handing out a couple of years to people with no previous does seem a little on the harsh side.

Wonder if you'd say the same for people attacking statues a couple of years ago? My guess is not. Have you condemned their actions?

 

[1D54]

Wonder if you'd say the same for people attacking statues a couple of years ago? My guess is not. Have you condemned their actions?

A disgusting bunch of people who IMHO don't give a damn about the history of this country unless it suits their ignorant beliefs. I'd have given the lot of them five years.

 

[AlterEgo]

A disgusting bunch of people who IMHO don't give a damn about the history of this country unless it suits their ignorant beliefs. I'd have given the lot of them five years.

Five years for being mean to a statue. Smacks of insecurity.

 

[Cross City]

A disgusting bunch of people who IMHO don't give a damn about the history of this country unless it suits their ignorant beliefs. I'd have given the lot of them five years.

Of course you feel the same about suffragettes committing arson, disrupting sporting events and even planting bombs though right? right??

What they did to forward their (obviously entirely correct) agenda was far worse than whatever JSO or the BLM lot we're/are doing or ever will do.

History will look back in disgust with the way JSO were perceived at the [this] time.

The amount of rage people spit because a few statues are being covered with some water soluble orange powder paint is mental.

 

[DustyBin]

History will look back in disgust with the way JSO were perceived at the [this] time.

I suspect they'll be looked back upon as the dangerous, extremist, cranks that they are, but I guess we'll have to wait and see!

 

[Busaholic]

History will look back in disgust with the way JSO were perceived at the [this] time.

Playing Devil's Advocate for a moment, if JSO are right and we don't heed their call, then the future doesn't exist so no history gets written!

 

[WelshBluebird]

A disgusting bunch of people who IMHO don't give a damn about the history of this country unless it suits their ignorant beliefs. I'd have given the lot of them five years.

So you think pulling down a statue should be punished more harshly than rioting, trying to burn down hotels full of people, setting fire to libraries and literally forming lynch mobs to try to kill people who aren't white?

 

[BrokenSam]

So you think pulling down a statue should be punished more harshly than rioting, trying to burn down hotels full of people, setting fire to libraries and literally forming lynch mobs to try to kill people who aren't white?

Wouldn't bother. He's shown who he really is

 

[DarloRich]

I notice the right wing cranks, like Farage, have pivoted to all this being an attack on free speech and revoking magna carta or some such.

Obviously the bots are pumping this out and the brain dead lap it up, regurgitate and ask for more!

 

[Haywain]

Obviously the bots are pumping this out and the brain dead lap it up, regurgitate and ask for more!

Even the owner of X is regurgitating that line.