[MENTION=849]jmdrake[/MENTION].
He did nothing but shout and gesture at cops, and call them names, according to this article.
He didn't even use any "racist" language that I can see.
https://www.yourlocalguardian.co.uk/news/24516089.sutton-man-61-chanted-who-f-allah-jailed/
Of course he's crawfishing and apologizing and spewing blandishments now that he's facing prison.
Typical weak white man.
Here is the U.K. violent disorder statute:
Violent disorder.
(1)Where 3 or more persons who are present together use or threaten unlawful violence and the conduct of them (taken together) is such as would cause a person of reasonable firmness present at the scene to fear for his personal safety, each of the persons using or threatening unlawful violence is guilty of violent disorder
.
(2)It is immaterial whether or not the 3 or more use or threaten unlawful violence simultaneously.
(3)No person of reasonable firmness need actually be, or be likely to be, present at the scene.
(4)Violent disorder may be committed in private as well as in public places.
(5)A person guilty of violent disorder is liable on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 5 years or a fine or both, or on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or both.
So let's apply the facts to the statute.
1) Sounds like there were 3 or more people and the conduct of at least one of them (picking up pieces of pavement and yelling at the police) would put a reasonable person in fear of his safety.
2) It doesn't matter that the old dude wasn't threatening anyone as long as he was part of the group where somebody was.
3) While nobody of "reasonable firmness" needed to be at the scene, it's clear that people were there.
4) This was a public space but it doesn't matter either way.
5) He was facing up to 5 years and got 18 months.
Do I
agree with this statute? Hell no. You should be able to be at a protest and if someone is violent as long as
you don't actively encourage anyone to do something violent you shouldn't be charged. That said, I'm not sure if he could or could not have been charged under the U.S. version of this law "incitement to riot."
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2102
(a)As used in this chapter, the term “riot” means a public disturbance involving (1) an act or acts of violence by one or more persons part of an assemblage of three or more persons, which act or acts shall constitute a clear and present danger of, or shall result in, damage or injury to the property of any other person or to the person of any other individual or (2) a threat or threats of the commission of an act or acts of violence by one or more persons part of an assemblage of three or more persons having, individually or collectively, the ability of immediate execution of such threat or threats, where the performance of the threatened act or acts of violence would constitute a clear and present danger of, or would result in, damage or injury to the property of any other person or to the person of any other individual.
(b)As used in this chapter, the term “to incite a riot”, or “to organize, promote, encourage, participate in, or carry on a riot”, includes, but is not limited to, urging or instigating other persons to riot, but shall not be deemed to mean the mere oral or written (1) advocacy of ideas or (2) expression of belief, not involving advocacy of any act or acts of violence or assertion of the rightness of, or the right to commit, any such act or acts.
Looking at the U.S. law, there were 3 or more persons, and there acts that constituted a "clear and present danger" of injury. It doesn't sound like the old guy organized it. Could he be scene as encouraging it? Of coruse from the U.S. version, Ray Epps should have been charged and convicted back in 2021, but the feds didn't bother him until 2023 after much public pressure.
Anyhow, while I wouldn't have gond after old dude, he wasn't charged merely for saying "Who the f**** if Allah." If he had been on the sidewalk by himself saying that, no problem. If there had been 100 people gathered chanting that and
nobody did anything that could be construed as violent, again no problem and least under
this statute.
