17-year-old girl facing jail because of G20

[spring-peeper]

At least two, but the point is that being seen to clamp down hard on this 17 year old is a great way for the authorities to draw media attention on the (minimal) violence rather than address the serious issues abut the conduct of the police on the day.

With so many issues, questions and concerns about your police, I think that it's wonderful that each issue has it's own thread. That way posters can concentrate on one thing at a time and it makes for cleaner reading than having several events being crammed into one thread and having to jump all over trying to remember who is addressing which concern.

This thread is about the 17-yo.

 

[London_Calling]

If she was damaging equipment whilst inside it's def Burglary under S9 Theft Act but, if she were to plead not guily, some jury's might be pretty reluctant to convict given the RBS context - or not. Bit of a gamble.

 

[editor]

With so many issues, questions and concerns about your police, I think that it's wonderful that each issue has it's own thread. That way posters can concentrate on one thing at a time and it makes for cleaner reading than having several events being crammed into one thread and having to jump all over trying to remember who is addressing which concern.

This thread is about the 17-yo.

You're quite wrong. The point about the focus of the media attention is very relevent to this thread.

 

[spring-peeper]

You're quite wrong. The point about the focus of the media attention is very relevent to this thread.

ok

 

[Azrael]

If she was damaging equipment whilst inside it's def Burglary under S9 Theft Act but, if she were to plead not guily, some jury's might be pretty reluctant to convict given the RBS context - or not. Bit of a gamble.

I can't see a judge allowing a defence barrister to argue necessity, so an acquittal would seem unlikely. But you never know.

 

[Bahnhof Strasse]

If she was damaging equipment whilst inside it's def Burglary under S9 Theft Act but, if she were to plead not guily, some jury's might be pretty reluctant to convict given the RBS context - or not. Bit of a gamble.

Wasn't even a working branch of RBS, just an empty shell with a few bits and pieces they couldn't be fucked to take when they moved out.

 

[Bahnhof Strasse]

I can't see a judge allowing a defence barrister to argue necessity, so an acquittal would seem unlikely. But you never know.

A jury can acquit for any reasons it likes.

 

[London_Calling]

I can't see a judge allowing a defence barrister to argue necessity, so an acquittal would seem unlikely. But you never know.

I'm mean a perverse verdict

 

[Azrael]

A jury can acquit for any reasons it likes.

Of course, but it ups your chances quite a bit if they know they can nullify.

 

[Azrael]

I'm mean a perverse verdict

Ah yes, the bizarre British term for jury nullification. If the jury are right there's nothing perverse about it! And if they're not, well, it's their right. Bushell's Case and all that.

 

[Reese]

People are making a lot of the fact that this young woman is 17, yes, she is a young woman and at 17 most are very street wise and not kids. You notice that the hard men who are masked up ready to take on the plod are never nicked just the silly buggers who get shoved to the front.

 

[sonny61]

While I hate those masked up wankers, who could not punch their way out of a paper bag. I do hope this young kid is not sent to prison. Stupid silly girl, probably pissed, got carried away on the ''were going to take the City'' bullshit.

At a guess, the courts will make her made pay for the damage, and do community service, even if put down, it will be months more than years. I think the court is trying to scare her by warning her of a possible prison sentence. Give her a chance, she will have told the police everything she knows anyway, pointless in putting her down.

I would like Knight, the tosser who gave the interview on CH4 news charged, and see him banged up for a few years.
As well as the older ones behind the violence, who whipped up into trouble, excitable and wet behind the ears middle class kids.

As for the guy charged with arson, it's going to be a few years before he will see a demo again, and so it should be.

 

[Jeff Robinson]

I would like Knight, the tosser who gave the interview on CH4 news charged, and see him banged up for a few years.

I didn't see the interview. Could you explain to me what he said on national tv that was so outrageous that it means he should be deprived of his liberty for a few years?

 

[butchersapron]

While I hate those masked up wankers, who could not punch their way out of a paper bag. I do hope this young kid is not sent to prison. Stupid silly girl, probably pissed, got carried away on the ''were going to take the City'' bullshit.

At a guess, the courts will make her made pay for the damage, and do community service, even if put down, it will be months more than years. I think the court is trying to scare her by warning her of a possible prison sentence. Give her a chance, she will have told the police everything she knows anyway, pointless in putting her down.

I would like Knight, the tosser who gave the interview on CH4 news charged, and see him banged up for a few years.
As well as the older ones behind the violence, who whipped up into trouble, excitable and wet behind the ears middle class kids.

As for the guy charged with arson, it's going to be a few years before he will see a demo again, and so it should be.

I hope she gets off and comes down Vic street and burns you and your fucking working class party to the ground.

 

[sonny61]

I hope she gets off and comes down Vic street and burns you and your fucking working class party to the ground.

But she won't will she? Like most kids who flirt with various far left groups, they grow up and walk away.

 

[butchersapron]

No she won't. Who mentioned anything about far left groups or flirting with them btw?

 

[brasicritique]

A seventeen year old girl faces jail becasue of a lot of inane egotistical pratts which in my opinion , ( an opinion which i have posted here with no intent to link urban75 specifically to the actions of this girl or violence at the G20 as i have not the proof or knowledge of any posters on urban advocatig violence in general or encouraging people to be violent at the G20)some of whom probably post on urban encouraged her to do what she did the truth be told.

Sadly a 17 year old year girl has come to represent everything that is wrong with so called radical / alternative politics and the whole recent over hyped G20 sham which passed as protest.

I hope she does not go to prison as she is 17 and i doubt she would be able to cut it, even were she to get a couple of months, esp as i doubt she is street. In her case i hope that she is from the usual radical demograph with access to legal advice most teenagers would dream of. Still i hope she gets off as easy as possible.

 

[brasicritique]

I hope she gets off and comes down Vic street and burns you and your fucking working class party to the ground.

so sayeth Marx

 

[Azrael]

People are making a lot of the fact that this young woman is 17 [...]

If 17-year-olds are old enough to be criminally responsible, they're old enough to have a vote and sign contracts. It might be arbitrary, but a dividing line between child and adult must be set somewhere. Our age of criminal responsibility is absurdly low at 10. In my view it should be linked to the age of majority. Which isn't to say that under-18s should get off Scot free, but that they have a special status, and punishment be strictly limited.

 

[editor]

A seventeen year old girl faces jail becasue of a lot of inane egotistical pratts some of whom probably post on urban encouraged her to do what she did the truth be told.

You've been warned about your trolling before.

What you're trying to do here is associate these boards with a criminal act, and unless you can offer some kind of proof that anyone on these boards actively encouraged, aided or abetted the above, you'll be off a nice little holiday.

 

[butchersapron]

so sayeth Marx

Kicked out the wetherspoons?

 

[brasicritique]

You've been warned about your trolling before. .

FFS why would i troll on a thread about a 17 year old girl facing jail.

What you're trying to do here is associate these boards with a criminal act,
.

Bullshit

and unless you can offer some kind of proof that anyone on these boards actively encouraged, aided or abetted the above,.

More bullshit see my edited original post above.

you'll be off a nice little holiday.

What for posting on how sad it is that a 17 year old girl is facing criminal charges for doing what she did. Btw you working for the plod now then ed?

Go see my above edit. Everything i post is my opinion go and look at the protest forum and you will see that in a recent post on a thread i edited the post so as to make it clear that i was stating my opinion as there were concerns over the plod seizing your servers. Basically you dont like me as i have most of you sussed which going by the above post in context of another recent post by another poster futher just demonstrates how some people can break the rules every five minutes even when they start trouble , and you do nothing. You are waaaayyy over reacting here and anyone with any honesty or the ability to be imparital would be able to tell you that

I will ask you again yes i fllamed bucthers as i am not perfect , and he is supposed to be pro working class that aside why the fuck would i troll on a thread like this? , otr as the case may be why would you accuse me of trolling on a thread like this. Grow up

 

[brasicritique]

Kicked out the wetherspoons?

It feels like it now

 

[Cobbles]

Some of us don't like this system because it don't work in the interests on the majority

Easy answer - use your vote.

Just because you (and possibly a couple of hundred others) don't like or approve of the current system, that doesn't elevate a random act of vandalism beyond the same level of pure thuggery that is demonstrated by some brainless ned setting fire to a school "kos there's nuffink else to do innit?".

 

[GarfieldLeChat]

I didn't say it was the same and didn't argue anything. I do think that maliciously causing damage to property of any kind, bank or mosque, is not praiseworthy, that young people doing the damage should not be surprised if they get charged with vandalism, and that older people ought not to praise them for it.

old people might want to get a sense of persepctive though by exprapolation of what you've said here. seeing as the young people in your piece don't seem to have one why should the old over compensate for this by dracionian punishments for minor things, rasiing something to the ground by fire is clearly worse than breaking a window of a company.

it's a broken window ffs no one died or was injured

 

[GarfieldLeChat]

Easy answer - use your vote.

Just because you (and possibly a couple of hundred others) don't like or approve of the current system, that doesn't elevate a random act of vandalism beyond the same level of pure thuggery that is demonstrated by some brainless ned setting fire to a school "kos there's nuffink else to do innit?".

shut up really...

if voting change anything it's merely the board of directors the people who make the polices largely election to elelction go un changed because replacing the infrastructure eacht ime of the election where we also have to elect bueracrats would be a nightmare and also who'd fucking run it or see it was impartial? so the polices eneacted throguh each admisitration alter only by the advise coming from the same sources each time with the same departmental poltical aims. so the polices remain largley unchanged merely tinkered with.

ergo voting achives nothing with out sustained changes through our the govermental apperatus and this cannot be achived by simple polling and election.

in simple terms you might understand if voting changed anything it'd be illegal.

 

[Cobbles]

shut up really...

if voting change anything it's merely the board of directors the people who make the polices largely election to elelction go un changed because replacing the infrastructure eacht ime of the election where we also have to elect bueracrats would be a nightmare and also who'd fucking run it or see it was impartial? so the polices eneacted throguh each admisitration alter only by the advise coming from the same sources each time with the same departmental poltical aims. so the polices remain largley unchanged merely tinkered with.

ergo voting achives nothing with out sustained changes through our the govermental apperatus and this cannot be achived by simple polling and election.

in simple terms you might understand if voting changed anything it'd be illegal.

So what credible alternative can you offer?

 

[sunshine1]

Easy answer - use your vote.

Just because you (and possibly a couple of hundred others) don't like or approve of the current system, that doesn't elevate a random act of vandalism beyond the same level of pure thuggery that is demonstrated by some brainless ned setting fire to a school "kos there's nuffink else to do innit?".

There are none so blind as those who see not - The bourgeois system, Capitalism, the Market system, call it what you will is not an essential pre-condition of a free-society, of a world where people co-operate freely to produce all they need and then help themselves to the proceeds, be they porridge oats or Porsche cars.

When we participate in a vote it is usually for one of the main capitalist parties, is it not, and who when elected serve only the interests of that system and see to it's retention. But more and more people are coming to see the market economy, the money system as nothing more than a cul-de-sac leading nowhere. Soon your views and those like you will be a minority, that's a good thing!

 

[Cobbles]

There are none so blind as those who see not - The bourgeois system, Capitalism, the Market system, call it what you will is not an essential pre-condition of a free-society, of a world where people co-operate freely to produce all they need and then help themselves to the proceeds, be they porridge oats or Porsche cars.

So with the absence of Capitalism, who provides that Capital to fund the vehicle development e.g. the Soviet Union never had anything like a Porsche (or much in the way of porage oats either most of the time).

When we participate in a vote it is usually for one of the main capitalist parties, is it not, and who when elected serve only the interests of that system and see to it's retention.

Fine so start a new party (oh no, I keep forgetting, you actually need some popular support for that).

But more and more people are coming to see the market economy, the money system as nothing more than a cul-de-sac leading nowhere. Soon your views and those like you will be a minority, that's a good thing!

Fine - if that's the case then you'll have enough support to enter a few elections - how long do you think it'll take before you'll be able to eclipse the levels of popular support achieved by the Monster Raving Loony party, the BNP and the "make Jade Goody an official saint" movement?

 

[dennisr]

So with the absence of Capitalism, who provides that Capital to fund the vehicle development e.g. the Soviet Union never had anything like a Porsche (or much in the way of porage oats either most of the time).

The assumptions you make say a lot about you and very little about the capitalist system

a) The ultimate in capitalist development is a Porsche? (well millions live and dies in poverty)

b) The Soviet Union was/is the only alternative on offer to this system

I suppose you would argue that the capitalist system creates the 'big thinkers' - shame you don't seem to be one of them. I suppose it makes you feel more secure that you can add the usual 'well, most folk are thick as pigshit in any case' (as though it is some form of inate human behaviour that would tend to legitimise your own cynical, selfish world view)