Five Palestine Action activists face being sentenced as terrorists after they sprayed red paint and cracked windows at a branch of Barclays bank to protest the company’s links to an Israeli weapons manufacturer.
That is to say, yes, the terrorism connection absolutely increases the severity of the sentence.
There’s no such thing as “severity of the sentence”. They got the minimal possible sentence for criminal damage. The sentence was not increased in any way by the aggravating factor. Is was the minimal possible.
On top of that, since the jury were unaware that this was being considered, and not allowed to consider motivations in their verdict, there seems to be a fundamental rupture in the process of natural justice.
As with “severity of the sentence” you don’t know what you’re talking about. That’s not how any of it works.
I wasn’t using legal language. By “the severity of the sentence”, I just meant the length or onerousness of the sentence.
They got the minimal possible sentence for criminal damage. The sentence was not increased in any way by the aggravating factor. Is was the minimal possible.
A flat lie, if you claim to have read the judgement, since it says:
I will impose the shortest custodial term that is commensurate with the seriousness of the offence, taking account of aggravating and mitigating features.
Then, your ad hominem response “you don’t know what you’re talking about” renders your argument void. Try again, if you like. But I’d advise you to save face and admit your mistakes at this point.
You fucking legend.
So few, so vanishingly few people on internet forums remain open-minded enough to change their view, on anything even when presented with incontrovertible evidence. I like to think I’m one of these few, and now I think you are too. Good on you.
I’m a scientist by education, and so I value nothing more, intellectually, than being able to admit you have more to learn.
I couldn’t possibly have more respect for you than I do now after reading your last comment.
As an aside, I find your other comments to be really incisive, and you’ve made me see this issue in a new light. Thanks to you, I’ve read the entire judgement, and realised that these people are far from heroes, the issue isn’t black and white, and Corner probably deserves most of his sentence. Which was soothing to my anger, because this isn’t as egregious a miscarriage of justice as I previously thought. It’s still a partisan reading of the law though, in my opinion. But it doesn’t seem to overstep the bounds, just burgeon upon them.
There’s no such thing as “severity of the sentence”. They got the minimal possible sentence for criminal damage. The sentence was not increased in any way by the aggravating factor. Is was the minimal possible.
As with “severity of the sentence” you don’t know what you’re talking about. That’s not how any of it works.
I wasn’t using legal language. By “the severity of the sentence”, I just meant the length or onerousness of the sentence.
A flat lie, if you claim to have read the judgement, since it says:
Then, your ad hominem response “you don’t know what you’re talking about” renders your argument void. Try again, if you like. But I’d advise you to save face and admit your mistakes at this point.
You’re right. They did add 2 years to the sentence because of various aggravating factors, terrorist connected being one of them. Good to know.
You fucking legend.
So few, so vanishingly few people on internet forums remain open-minded enough to change their view, on anything even when presented with incontrovertible evidence. I like to think I’m one of these few, and now I think you are too. Good on you.
I’m a scientist by education, and so I value nothing more, intellectually, than being able to admit you have more to learn.
I couldn’t possibly have more respect for you than I do now after reading your last comment.
As an aside, I find your other comments to be really incisive, and you’ve made me see this issue in a new light. Thanks to you, I’ve read the entire judgement, and realised that these people are far from heroes, the issue isn’t black and white, and Corner probably deserves most of his sentence. Which was soothing to my anger, because this isn’t as egregious a miscarriage of justice as I previously thought. It’s still a partisan reading of the law though, in my opinion. But it doesn’t seem to overstep the bounds, just burgeon upon them.
Anyway, thanks.