This is a short segment where Laurie Penny debated with John Cooper QC on Radio 5 about whether the sentences imposed on Charlie Jonnie Marbles and Gilmour was excessive, and – if so – why.

Laurie’s points are, variously:

• That ‘violent disorder is a catch all charge relating to being on a demonstration’
• That Charlie ‘did not do anything violent’
• That anyone with a sensible attitude to the prison system should agree that the sentence was outrageous.
• That this is about the criminalisation of being on a protest.

John Cooper‘s points are:

• That Charlie Gilmour was convicted of particular charges according to law.
• That a series of incidents of Violent Disorder over a period of hours an atmosphere of mob violence is declared in law to be relevant case at hand.
• That the sentence was well within the range laid down for these circumstances.

In the blogosphere, this has led to a targetting of the Judge concerned:

I’d say that this video is somewhat ‘creatively’ edited.

Though I’m something of a Laurie-Penny-o-Sceptic, but I think that the conversation about where this is political policing, reasonable policing, bad law leading to heavy handed enforcement which is not the fault of the police force or the Judiciary, over-enthusiastic political interpreation, or something else entirely, is an important one.

Laurie has agreed to appear on the Without Prejudice podcast for a debate with the legal hosts.

It will be interesting, and I will point it out the podcast when it is released.

Photo credits: John Cooper’s Twitter icon, and Laurie Penny from a publicity shot.

Elena ‘andcart
August 9, 2011 at 09:18

I don’t know if the sentence was too harsh, but I can’t help feeling that
being who he was didn’t help.

Oop North August 8, 2011 at 22:35

I doubt whether the scrote will serve the full sentence as room will have
to be made soon for all the other scrotes currently trying to go shopping at
Currys and Footlocker without credit cards or cash.

Andrew Duffin
August 8, 2011 at 09:14

What Quiet_Man said.

And if they gave him a longer sentence for being posh, well that’s fine by
me; people with privilege should set an example, not behave like the
underclass.

Prat.

Robert Edwards
August 8, 2011 at 04:50

I’m sure the little scrote can be kept going with a weekly hamper from
Fortnum’s.

Daz
Pearce August 7, 2011 at 23:33

Gilmour was an idiot on the day, but I’d have to admit to agreeing with
Penny on something for the first time in my life. 16 months is pretty harsh
and has the feel of a political decision more than anything. Can’t see him
being a risk to society and haven’t we got a ‘no sending people to prison to
save money’ policy these days?

Looks like much more dangerous people have either been let out or escaped
jail altogether.

http://outspokenrabbit.blogspot.com/

ComfortablyNumb
August 7, 2011 at 16:57

I’m a huge PF fan . Have the tattoos to prove it. But I have to totally
agree with Sokdraw. I doubt he’s ever had a political conviction in his life.
Well he’s got a conviction for something now!

The evidence before the court is
Incontrivertable, there’s no need
for
The jury to retire.
In all my years of judging
I have never heard
before
Of someone more deserving
Of the full penaltie of law.
The way
you made them suffer,
Your exquisite wife and mother,
Fills me with the
urge to defecate!

The Trial, The Wall, Pink Floyd

Sokdraw August 7, 2011 at 16:39

Gilmour JR is a scumbag and deserves everything that’s coming to him.
Subversion of the law is allowed through his old man’s music, period.

Matt
Wardman August 7, 2011 at 16:00

My general take is that the “political policing” arguments are DNA showing
through the Anti-Cuts movement marketing-front from some of the more extreme
left groups which provide the core impetus, and that debating it openly can
only be a good thing.

There is a case to be made, I think, for some stuff which has been badly
handled – but it has more to do with bad law than malicious practice from the
Judiciary.

I find myself on the other side of this argument than previously, for
example I found policing of the demonstrations at Kingsnorth far too heavy
handed – even though I disagree with the aims of the demonstrators there.

Spiral Architect
August 7, 2011 at 15:33

Well, we’ll see won’t we.

Gilmour got 16 months for ‘violent disorder’ – I’d say that that was
reasonable.

However, it is only reasonable if anyone convicted of ‘rioting’ in
Tottenham gets a lot more – the maximum sentence is 10yrs.

Quiet_Man August
7, 2011 at 15:21

As far as I’m concerned anyone who climbs onto the Cenotaph and tries to
pull the flags off deserves more than a paltry 18 months sentence.
Disrespecting our honoured dead to me deserves something in the region of 5 to
10 years, same for those who burn poppies on Armistice day

Jack Savage August 7, 2011 at 15:16

Oddly, there might be a couple of moments there when Laurie Penny is in
danger of saying something sensible. However, such is the nature of her
breathless squeaky delivery that it is always going to sound like the
senseless uber-lefty drivel one usually gets.

Gilmour should be locked up for the pathetic excuse that he was on valium,
whisky and LSD (!) at the time. Judges can smell bullshit like that.
They
must have changed the formula for LSD considerably if you can now swing on
flags and at all comport yourself in the middle of a riot on it. Just going to
post a letter on it would have been a journey too far in my day.
A genuine
expression of remorse might have gone a lot further.