16
Aug 11

Why you can get four years jail for inciting disorder on Facebook

The jailing of two men for four years each for inciting disorder using Facebook has drawn some surprise and criticism online.

Jordan Blackshaw, 20, from Marston near Northwich, and Perry Sutcliffe-Keenan, 22, from Warrington, were convicted at Chester Crown Court.

It’s not clear at present whether the sentences were for encouraging riot or violent disorder but the sentences, while harsh, are easily explained.

I presume that the pair pled guilty. Either way, the court found as a matter of fact that the defendants intended for their encouragement to be followed. Had that happened, numerous offences would have been committed in the course of the ensuing disorder including burglaries, thefts, robberies and violent crimes such as assault, grievous bodily harm or even murder.

It is of no credit to the defendants that their encouragement wasn’t followed.

The courts sentence encouragement to an offence in the same way as the substantive offence itself. Encouragement to riot is sentenced in the same way as riot. Encouragement to murder is sentenced in the same way as murder.

The maximum sentence for violent disorder is five years. The maximum for riot is ten years.

While these sentences are heavy, they take into account the actual consequences had the defendants’ intentions succeeded, with all the injuries, economic loss and anxiety that would have followed. The people of Cheshire can be thankful that Blackshaw and Sutcliffe-Keenan didn’t succeed and a very clear message has been sent to anyone considering a similar course of action.

Update 17 Aug: Both defendants pleaded guilty. The charges were encouraging riot, for which the maximum sentence is ten years.


11
Aug 11

Croydon Reeves Corner fire — what did you see?

I’m trying to put together a clearer picture of events around the fire that burned down the House of Reeves furniture shop in Croydon on Monday evening. This isn’t part of a police investigation nor am I a journalist. I’m just a Londoner who wants to understand the situation better and help to tell the story.

If you were near Reeves Corner and you saw the fire at any stage or if you were in Croydon town centre on Monday evening you may be able to help.

Please leave a comment below (which will be public) or email me privately at adrian.short@gmail.com if you don’t want to leave a public comment. I’m also on Twitter as @adrianshort.

You don’t need to use your real name but if you’re happy to do that it’ll help.

Any email address you use in the comments below will not be published but I may use it to get in touch with you to follow up.

Please can you tell me:

  • Where were you and what did you see?
  • What time was that?
  • Did you phone 999 about a fire or anything else? At what time? What did they say? Use your phone’s outgoing call log to get the times of your calls.
  • Did you take any photos or videos? Are they online? Where and at what time were they taken?
  • Did you send or receive any text messages with other people who were in the area? What did they say and at what time?
  • Did you post to Facebook, Twitter or other social media sites about the situation in Croydon? What did you say and at what time? Please post any web links that you have.
  • Did you see any fire engines or other fire vehicles or staff in Croydon on Monday afternoon or evening? Where were they? How many vehicles were there? What were they doing? What time was that?
  • Did you see any police officers and vehicles in Croydon on Monday afternoon or evening? Where were they? How many vehicles were there? What were they doing? What time was that?
  • Where were the lines of police blocking off streets? At what time did you see those lines? Roughly how many officers were there on the line?
  • If you work in a shop or business in Croydon, what time did you close on Monday? What time do you normally close on Mondays? If you closed early, why did you decide to do that? How many staff were working with you on Monday?
  • Were there any problems using public transport such as services cancelled or stations/routes closed? Where and at what time?

Any help or information you can give is really appreciated. Together we should be able to build a clear picture of exactly what happened in Croydon on Monday and help to prevent a similar situation happening again.

Please post this page to your social networks so that others can contribute.

If you have any specific information about a crime or criminals connected to the Croydon riots please phone the police on 101.

Thank you for your help and for getting the word out.

 

 


09
Aug 11

Curfew? We need an anti-curfew

Our towns and cities are looted and burned.

The police have lost control of the streets. They are outnumbered and outmanoeuvred by groups of rioters springing up where they please, causing damage and dispersing just as quickly.

Our fire service is stretched to its limit. In many cases the unsafe situation on the ground means that trained firefighters are reduced simply to watching buildings burn, standing alongside those whose homes and livelihoods are going up in flames.

If the people who caused the trouble last night want to do it again tonight I’ve got no confidence that the police will be any more effective in stopping them, whatever new equipment and powers you might want to give them.

But the problem isn’t too many bad people on the streets. It’s too few good people on the streets.

The police say that law abiding citizens should stay indoors and keep out of their way. They don’t want people to be “spectators”. The police want to be able to separate the troublemakers from the rest and deal with them.

We don’t need people out on the streets as spectators, standing around to watch criminals trash their towns. We need active citizens with the numbers and the nerve to stop it.

We don’t need to get out of the police’s way because in many cases that just means getting out of the looters’ and arsonists’ way. We need to get in the way in overwhelming numbers.

The criminal element is a minority. We need to make them feel like one — outnumbered ten to one by ordinary, law-abiding people who are prepared to keep watch over the safety and property of their neighbours.

We don’t need to shut the shops early. We need to keep them open late. A closed shop does nothing to stop the family living in the flat above getting burned out of their home as happened on many occasions last night. Yesterday’s riots started so early because ordinary people abandoned their streets by late afternoon. The rioters caused mayhem in broad daylight because there was no-one to stop them.

Closing shops early is a tactic that has manifestly failed. Nothing would be worse than repeating it tonight. People need to be out shopping, drinking and partying in their town centres tonight like it’s New Year’s Eve.

Some people have suggested a curfew. But we know that the police don’t have the numbers to manage that effectively. A curfew will just lead to more shops burned and looted and more police officers injured. The police can’t be everywhere in sufficient numbers to stop that happening.

If we’re going to compel anyone we need an anti-curfew. Make it illegal to stay indoors tonight. Get everyone out and dilute the rioting minority to nothing. Don’t expect the police to do it for you because they simply can’t. If you want your town to be safe tonight you’re going to have to do it yourself.

Let’s party.

 


07
Aug 11

Were the riots inevitable?

It’s become a cliche among many people that rioting is an inevitable consequence of deprivation and injustice. Last night’s rioting in Tottenham inspired a predictable – one might say inevitable – crop of examples on Twitter:

It’s because David Cameron turns a blind eye to corruption between Murdoch and Metropolitan Police that alienation makes riots inevitable. – derekrootboy

I don’t agree with riots but was inevitable when working classes are being fucked over like this. – mollymccowen

Riots inevitable in people who cannot express their anger in any other way. Historical precedents a-plenty. – Jos21

The riots were inevitable. That’s the first thing I said when I heard about the shooting. Anger and hot summer nights are a lethal cocktail – iheni

tottenham riots Soh dem mash up Tottenham, !!! Was inevitable after the shooting of Mark Duncan (sic). Wasn’t rocket science in my book – Mafia1065

Historically it’s inevitable there are riots when there are cuts like this – HelenReloaded

the climate in our country is terrible and riots were inevitable but the looting and destroying of places of work saddens me – evey_moriarty

This was inevitable..tory government. Riots. Protests. Cuts. Unemployment. Disaffected Youth. Strikes. Recession. Police Brutality. – xxlucyxlucyxx

When people are attacked by ideological cuts and suffer racism from the police, riots like this are inevitable. – PennyRed

Riots were inevitable given building unhappiness with the manner in which the police conducts itself – dr_rita39

The Guardian is giving front-page space today to a video from a week ago in which a young man from Haringey asserts that the closure of local youth clubs will lead to riots.

Dave Osler at Liberal Conspiracy skilfully avoids the i-word but you can tell he means it:

[S]uch is the degree of disconnect between all the major parties and the street that the chances of positive engagement are next to zero. There is instead the recourse of riot.

Back at the Guardian, Dave Hill offers a slightly more nuanced explanation:

In such a climate [of economic deprivation and government cutbacks], an event such as the shooting dead by police of 29 year-old father of four Mark Duggan on Thursday night is more likely to provide in some minds, especially young ones, a pretext, a rationale or an opportunity to jettison any respect for the law or regard for fellow citizens and let rip.

These widespread views about the supposed inevitability of rioting need closer examination.

Those who make the case for inevitable rioting are rarely speaking about themselves. Journalists and commentators on comfortable middle incomes are less likely to be seriously affected by a sluggish economy, government cutbacks and police thuggery than those at the bottom of the social pile even if they’re as angry about it as anyone else. They won’t be out at 5am torching John Lewis or looting the local Jigsaw.

Nor will the people in the Guardian’s youth clubs video or those discussing the rioting on Twitter. Many of these people are likely to be in very similar circumstances to those burning, looting and attacking the emergency services.

What’s notable about the Tottenham riots and rioting in the UK in general is the scale – not how large and commonplace riots are but how small and rare. Anecdotes suggest that people were coming from across London to join a riot just a few hundred strong in Tottenham. As some of those arrested give their home addresses in court this week we’ll see whether this can be confirmed. Rioting as an activity relies on the disinhibition and physical protection of strength in numbers. Tottenham by itself may have been too small a place to recruit a critical mass of rioters.

All of which suggests that the rioting in Tottenham may be far more about the those few rioters themselves than the society in which all of us live. Rioting stems not from the social grievances and frustrations of the many but from the desire for mayhem and the lack of self control of the few. Even in boom times the UK has around a million people unemployed and looking for work. Why isn’t there a riot every day of the week?

There are adequate good reasons to provide effective public services and social opportunities for people of all backgrounds without resorting to political blackmail: do this or riots will inevitably follow. Whether you want better student funding, good youth clubs or a competent and honest police service, public policy shouldn’t be run like a protection racket. Politicians should fear the masses casting ballots not the mob casting stones.

So people need to be very cautious when talking about the supposed inevitability of riots. If one person riots but the majority of his neighbours in exactly the same circumstances do not, that’s a matter of individual differences not social breakdown. The solutions to this kind of behaviour are found in psychology and criminology not politics.

Those who talk about the inevitability of riots show gross disrespect to the vast majority of people who live peaceably with their neighbours and abide by the law despite deprivation and injustice. They show disrespect to the rioters too. If some people can’t help themselves rioting they are put outside the proper demands of the community and the law, stripped of any meaningful citizenship. They’re robbed of their moral agency too – deprived of their ability to discern the right course of action whatever the circumstances and to act accordingly.

We need to have higher expectations of everyone than that.


01
Aug 11

Service design is like a steeplechase

Service design is like a steeplechase.

Everything that the customer has to know, has to have and has to do is a fence.

Customers fall at every fence.

The way to help more customers get to the finish line is to have fewer fences.


26
Jul 11

Did he really tweet that?

Lee Jasper got more than a few backs up today with a tasteless comment on Twitter about the Norway shooter at the supposed expense of Boris Johnson:

Boris Johnson and Breivik anyone notice the striking similarities or is just me? He could be his younger brother

Jasper then proceeded to compound the offence caused by throwing around various racist comments to the effect that all white people were responsible for what happened in Norway.

All par for the course from Jasper. Or was it?

@andywasley suggested that Jasper’s Twitter account might have been hacked and that the offensive posts were written by an imposter.

Jasper certainly never claimed that his account was hacked so we can presume that the tweets were by him. He also went on to lock the account so that people couldn’t read what he’d written.

But if we needed to, how would we judge whether Jasper’s tweets today were in character or out of it?

Step forward the naive Bayes classifier — the kind of software that protects your inbox from email spam.

The Bayes classifier is an artificial intelligence tool that can be used to sort documents into various categories. For email the categories would be spam and not-spam (a.k.a. “ham”). The not-spam ends up in your inbox and the spam gets filed somewhere else.

The Bayes classifier uses mathematical probability to make its decisions. It won’t be right all the time but they tend to have a pretty good success rate.

We can use the same technique to see whether Jasper’s tweets today were likely to be his.

I set up the Ruby classifier gem for this job.

First we define two categories: Leejasper and Notleejasper.

Then we train the classifier using documents — tweets — that we know belong in each category.

I downloaded a batch of tweets from Jasper’s account. There were 97 from today and 442 before today.

So the 97 are “unknown” tweets that need to be classified. The 442 tweets from before today are used to train the Leejasper category.

We also need to train the Notleejasper category. I downloaded 8187 tweets from various people’s accounts, political and non-political, and used those.

Running the 97 “unknown” tweets supposedly from Lee Jasper today through the classifier indicates that 87 are Leejasper and 10 are Notleejasper — a result of 89% in favour of Leejasper.

And what of the other 10? They’re mostly very bland and could have come from anyone:

Notleejasper:  Actually I agree...
Notleejasper:  He wont be getting my vote either..
Notleejasper:  I think there are certain circumstances where its entirely appropriate to do so the AC Leukaemia Trust being one of them.
Notleejasper:  My point is the historical trend that provide the context for your example.
Notleejasper:  Of course what...?
Notleejasper:  What I actually said is that they 'look alike' so get of your high horse.
Notleejasper:  a rare thing indeed...
Notleejasper:  agism in the workplace don't make me laugh. The majority don't want to work longer thats why we have mass industrial action.
Notleejasper:  and the reason for that is?
Notleejasper:  what you dont think they look alike?

Overall a fairly persuasive result. I’ll reiterate that Lee Jasper hasn’t disowned his tweets from today but if he did he’d be on pretty thin ice.

 


20
Jul 11

Should the Guardian have published Jonnie Marbles?

The pie man’s little stunt hasn’t gone down too well with almost anyone over the mental age of 12, whatever their politics. So should the Guardian have given Jonathan May-Bowles a.k.a. “comedy persona” Jonnie Marbles the opportunity to put his side of the story?

Guardian contributor Sunny Hundal thinks May-Bowles is an important voice and deserves to be heard. Moreover, the little people below the line like me shouldn’t have the temerity to question the Guardian’s weakest editorial decision since that nasty Max Gogarty business.

 

Free speech is a wonderful thing. Freedom of the press likewise. But that doesn’t mean that quality newspapers should give space to every immature half-wit that manages to barge his way into 15 seconds of live TV, especially if they end up in handcuffs with a face full of shaving foam. Interview them if you really must, but give them their own column? No.

So for the future reference of those with editorial tin ears, here’s a selection of Guardian readers’ thoughts on the issue.

tkforde

Comment may be free but the Guardian should exercise more wisdom in choosing who to allow advertise themselves. Marbles’ action had no merit.

He should have been left to fade into obscurity or to be a curious footnote to this sordid News Corporation story.

bradley1

Whilst he may not have been paid for this is it right and proper for the Guardian to give him more oxygen of publicity? I think not

MaryVirgo

Hey Guardian people

So you didn’t want the comments to turn into an ‘abuse fest’?

What did you think would happen?

I can’t believe you wasted time on the idiotic behaviour of a feeble-minded publicity hounded. I really am disgusted with him and a little with you too, I’m sorry to say.

SoAnnoyed

The appearance of this article shows really poor judgment on the Guardian’s part.

AzrinMyst

Why Guardian? Why?

richardoxford

this being run by the Guardian is up with the articles saying cyclists shouldn’t be prosecuted for injuring and killing people or it’s fine to burn down a Tesco’ s

solipticat

You, my friend, are a shameless self-promoting opportunist. I guess your stunt worked because now the Guardian has given you a platform.

Just go away. Don’t give any interviews, don’t write anything, stop commenting, stop tweeting. Your ridiculous “activist” affectations are not welcome. You have humiliated yourself. Just leave.

OccamsClaymore

Is this what the Guardian has come to?

branimira

Can the Guardian please explain why you have given space to this man to further promote his actions?

The less we hear about/from him, the better.

TarzantheApeMan

Jonnie you shamed UK Uncut, you shamed the Labour Party which you are a member, by attacking an 80 yr old man. Now you have shamed and soiled the Guardian.

1ITGirl

Dear Guardian.
Just why are you giving this guy a platform to speak about his hideous actions..

PeterGriffin

This is the sort of piece the Guardian sticks up to gather unique hits isn’t it? Also, it’s giving Marbles the attention he’s clearly seeking, which is annoying to say the least as he’s not the bloody story. Widespread corruption of the establishment is the story, not someone looking to push up their profile under the thinnest of excuses.

After the sterling work the Guardian have done over the hacking I expected better than them giving space to this ‘comedian’.

chrispicable

Own goal by The Guardian

SoAnnoyed

Nick Davies and his historic work on the hacking scandal is why I love the Guardian.

Jonnie Marbles and click-whoring articles like this one are why I hate the Guardian.

WSobchak

Guardian, you’ve come up with the best investigative journalism in years, you really don’t need to give space to someone who makes Colin Hunt look self-aware.

jijiandnoah

It was a stupid and crass act, and to be honest I’m disappointed with the Guardian for even letting you get any further publicity by putting this feeble explanation up here.

bananacannon

we could just ignore the fool… eh Guardian?

HunterKincaid

Who made you the voice of the public?

I don’t for one minute think you did this for anyone other than yourself. Shame on you! And shame on the Guardian for giving you a voice!

PeterGriffin

I get the impression the Guardian thought this would be a piece where people would actually defend Marbles (his real name is Jonathan May-Bowles) and we’d have a nice piece where Guardianistas would cheer our brave hero on. I don’t think they genuinely expected the venom being thrown at him from all side of the political spectrum, though they obviously expected the right to pile on and therefore generate lots of lovely web traffic.

Helioss

The Guardian has totally misjudged giving this sad loser the oxygen of publicity that he so craves.

But at least he now knows how hated he is by the very people whose approval he sought.

aureliano5

You should not have done it
You should not have tried to justify it
The TV streams should not have given you the shots afterwards
The Guardian should not have given you space

AngloAndy

Shame on The Guardian for running such a piece by one whose actions detracted from the due process of a parliamentary inquiry of national importance.

It seems that both The Guardian and the attacker are both getting to be ‘far too big’ for their boots.

timwilkinsonlewis

This guy might be the worst waste of space on the Guardian since that feller who thought he deserved an opinion column just because he wore skinny jeans.

Red98860

Guardian has debased itself by giving this execrable specimen column space.