Trolling

[AM9]

Absolutely, I think I can confidently predict nobody will get much more than the 6 months available now.

A good defence lawyer and plenty of sobbing always does the trick.

Judges represent a balanced view of the law as it is they who have the responsibility of making sentences relevant. Whilst the media can give time/column footage over to the rant of the week, and politicians will promote knee-jerk legislation in the course of electoral self-interest, it's the interpretations of the law that judges have to make in sentencing that have the long-term impact on society.

 

[455driver]

Judges represent a balanced view of the law as it is they who have the responsibility of making sentences relevant. Whilst the media can give time/column footage over to the rant of the week, and politicians will promote knee-jerk legislation in the course of electoral self-interest, it's the interpretations of the law that judges have to make in sentencing that have the long-term impact on society.

I literally spat my tea over the keyboard when I read that!

All the judges do is what the Government tell them!

Prisons are a bit full so dont send too many down, end result is suspended sentences and community orders when Prison would have been more appropriate and used a few months previously!
Judges get peed off about it as well but there isnt much they can do, you dont bite the hand that feeds you!

 

[Greenback]

I'm sure that 2 year sentences will be the exception and not the rule. But I think the fact that they could be used for the worst cases, and the publicity that is surrounding the idea, should help to focus people's minds that they are, in fact, abusing the principle of free speech by making vile threats and harassing others in public.

 

[Tim R-T-C]

I'm sure that 2 year sentences will be the exception and not the rule. But I think the fact that they could be used for the worst cases, and the publicity that is surrounding the idea, should help to focus people's minds that they are, in fact, abusing the principle of free speech by making vile threats and harassing others in public.

You'd have thought so, but there are already 6 month sentences available - which combined with the publicity are enough to destroy a career and a working life - yet it doesn't seem to stop people.

People think they are smart enough to avoid being detected so they just don't care.

 

[AM9]

I literally spat my tea over the keyboard when I read that!

All the judges do is what the Government tell them!

Actually the judiciary in the UK is quite independent of the day to day wishes of governments. They are not appointed by the government but by the Judicial Appointments Commission, an independent commission. Similarly, judges accountability is far removed from government, and we should all be grateful for that. Ultimately, the Lord Chancellor has an influence on the fate of a recalcitrant beak but there would be a considerable amount of process before he (she?) as a government representative became involved.
Judges do of course have to conduct trials in accordance with the laws of the land (and the day) which are enacted by the current or past governments. The rules of sentencing are laid out as part of the law, but they always leave 'working room' for the individual aspects of the case in hand. If a judge feels that a particular sentence is appropriate, no amount of ranting from an MP can change it. The only recourses the government have is:
a) push for an appeal, and that is only on the basis that the trial was not conducted correctly
or
b) change the law, which can only apply to future cases.

Prisons are a bit full so dont send too many down, end result is suspended sentences and community orders when Prison would have been more appropriate and used a few months previously!
Judges get peed off about it as well but there isnt much they can do, you dont bite the hand that feeds you!

Fortunately, we aren't one of those countries where the government can tamper with the judiciary on a day to day basis.

 

[muz379]

Judges do of course have to conduct trials in accordance with the laws of the land (and the day) which are enacted by the current or past governments.



Fortunately, we aren't one of those countries where the government can tamper with the judiciary on a day to day basis.

I agree with everything you have said ,
just worth pointing out the laws of the land are also made by the judges in the court of appeal and the supreme court and have to be followed by judges in the lower courts . So not all law is dictated by the government . In fact in some areas like the rules of criminal evidence the judges have made great interpretations of the laws passed in parliament so that they are different from what parliament wanted to have happen . Of course parliament could always change this system but in my opinion judges will always get the last say on the matter .

 

[Greenback]

You'd have thought so, but there are already 6 month sentences available - which combined with the publicity are enough to destroy a career and a working life - yet it doesn't seem to stop people.

People think they are smart enough to avoid being detected so they just don't care.

To be honest, I doubt most of the perpetrators of the worst examples have much of a life or career to worry about it! I don't think they are able to think much either. Social media has just given them a platform that they have never really had before.

I'm sure there are some keyboard warriors, who are quite reasonable and successful people in life, but put them on Twitter and Facebook and they turn into slathering devils. Those are the ones who, I hope, will think twice once they realise that a) they are not as anonymous as they might like to think, and b) the consequences of what they do could be severe.

Or maybe I am just mistakenly living in hope!

 

[Busaholic]

Without invoking any new laws or even extensions to existing laws, I would like to suggest letters like this could be sent to some of the worst perpretators, from local police HQs.

''We understand you claim to have information about the disappearance of Madeleine McCann which you do not appear to have shared with the investigating authorities. We are therefore calling you for a preliminary interview with the undersigned within the next month at a time and date to suit, so please contact us to arrange. If, on the other hand, having given the matter due consideration, you conclude you have no such information, we would ask you to confirm this in writing within the next three weeks, whereupon we would write back to you to remind you of the offence of wasting police time and the advisability of refraining from any further public comment on the matter.
We look forward to hearing from you.''
A bit pompous, maybe, but I think such letters would work in 90%+ cases, and you could then concentrate on the recidivists who may pose the real threat.

 

[MidnightFlyer]

I assume you'd also send those letters to the thousands of people who commented during the Pistorius trial then? What about for any other ongoing criminal investigation? You can't knock people for commenting on matters like that, especially when it is so dubious about what actually happened. I would also hope the police would have more pressing concerns in their business than watching a screen all day to see who says what about a matter on Twitter. Surely in those circumstances 'police wasting their own time' is more genuine than 'wasting police time'?!

 

[Busaholic]

I assume you'd also send those letters to the thousands of people who commented during the Pistorius trial then? What about for any other ongoing criminal investigation? You can't knock people for commenting on matters like that, especially when it is so dubious about what actually happened. I would also hope the police would have more pressing concerns in their business than watching a screen all day to see who says what about a matter on Twitter. Surely in those circumstances 'police wasting their own time' is more genuine than 'wasting police time'?!

If the alternative is introducing new criminal laws with sentences of up to 2 years imprisonment I'd think a few of these letters would cost far less in police time than one prosecution. Also Oscar Pretorius is neither a British citizen or living here, unlike the McCanns, and (a) he has appeared in court and (b) been convicted of a serious crime, so your analogy is spurious.No-one will ever be prosecuted in a British court over Pretorious unless they made physical threats against him which could be carried out. Alastair McAlpine's lawyers traced everyone who had tweeted or commented on Facebook or who had even passed on such messages about his alleged involvement in child molestation and, I believe, every single one got a warning letter. Now, he was a rich man with a reputation to defend but once you put something into the public domain you better be prepared to defend yourself if necessary. I can foresee lots of politicians using such a law against anyone launching tirades against them, however justified in the name of free speech.

 

[Greenback]

There's a world of difference between making comments, asking questions or posting what is clearly an opinion, and making threats, baseless accusations and personal insults.

 

[AM9]

Without invoking any new laws or even extensions to existing laws, I would like to suggest letters like this could be sent to some of the worst perpretators, from local police HQs.

''We understand you claim to have information about the disappearance of Madeleine McCann which you do not appear to have shared with the investigating authorities. We are therefore calling you for a preliminary interview with the undersigned within the next month at a time and date to suit, so please contact us to arrange. If, on the other hand, having given the matter due consideration, you conclude you have no such information, we would ask you to confirm this in writing within the next three weeks, whereupon we would write back to you to remind you of the offence of wasting police time and the advisability of refraining from any further public comment on the matter.
We look forward to hearing from you.''
A bit pompous, maybe, but I think such letters would work in 90%+ cases, and you could then concentrate on the recidivists who may pose the real threat.

Wasting police time is as a result of you approaching them and engaging them in dialogue that is deemed to be diversionary or frivolous or giving false information when asked 'to help them with their inquiries'. If the police approach you following publication of allegations that are made in the public domain, and you decline to accept their offer of a dialogue, they cannot then accuse you of wasting their time. If, of course your allegations are criminal or libellous then the police or the libelled respectively can take appropriate legal action. Such a letter would quickly be seen as a toothless exercise and consequently ignored by the very perpetrators it was addressed to.

 

[Busaholic]

Wasting police time is as a result of you approaching them and engaging them in dialogue that is deemed to be diversionary or frivolous or giving false information when asked 'to help them with their inquiries'. If the police approach you following publication of allegations that are made in the public domain, and you decline to accept their offer of a dialogue, they cannot then accuse you of wasting their time. If, of course your allegations are criminal or libellous then the police or the libelled respectively can take appropriate legal action. Such a letter would quickly be seen as a toothless exercise and consequently ignored by the very perpetrators it was addressed to.

Just the fact they knew the police had been made aware of them would be enough to stop most people with any rational thought processes, and leave the law to concentrate on those so hateful or irrational they could or would not help themselves.

 

[Clip]

Judges do of course have to conduct trials in accordance with the laws of the land (and the day) which are enacted by the current or past governments.

No, they could just be ExRes who pretends to be Helen Lovejoy