Ellie Mae O\’Hagan: You what?

This woman\’s vying for the Laurie Penny Award.

Because this is not solely about stamping out the under-represented but over-reported incidents of violent protest. Taking part in peaceful civil disobedience will become much more frightening as those arrested at protests are dragged through the courts system.

Eh?

Despite the piecemeal nature of sentencing for those convicted of violent disorder (there are currently no sentencing guidelines in the crown court), comparatively speaking Gilmour\’s fate seems to be hugely disproportionate and unfair. He simply should not be imprisoned for crimes that hurt nobody.

You what?

He was convicted of violent disorder.

\”Violence\”, note the word? Otherwise known as doing things which might actually hurt someone?

Far from this making peaceful civil disobedience more difficult or more dangerous it makes it safer. If you\’re out there shouting \”No Cuts! No Cuts!\” and the coppers are worried that someone\’s going to throw a rubbish bin at the royals, or as has happened at other demos (in the past, not recently) bags of marbles are going to be spread so as to collapse said coppers and or their horses, concrete blocks are going to be dropped from bridges or fire extinguishers from the 6 th floor, then more heads are going to get cracked open than if the violents are safely inside Wormwood Scrubs and those on the street are indeed just shouting \”No Cuts! No Cuts!\”.

We\’re all made safer, demonstrators, coppers and the general public, by having the violents away from the rest of us.

That\’s actually the friggin\’ point of distinguishing between peaceful civil disobedience and violent disorder.

And further note that if Master Gilmour had actually hurt someone he would have been charged with that, more grievous offence. And quite rightly too.

Works the other way around too: it\’s absolutely right that that copper will stand trial for manslaughter over Ian Tomlinson. No one is or should be above the law. It\’s actually what civil liberty means.

9 thoughts on “Ellie Mae O\’Hagan: You what?”

  1. Surreptitious Evil

    having admitted that he had taken LSD and Valium prior to the protests, it’s arguable whether he was wholly responsible for some of his more extreme idiocy.

    Err, right? Having taken illegal drugs and illegally (I presume – I may be wrong) taken legal but prescription drugs, excuses you from criminal responsibility? I thought it was the other way around?

    If you caused, without specific intent, a major effect (say death) while committing a less-serious breach of the law (say theft), that the mens rea was taken to follow from that provable for the less-serious breach – you were assumed then to have deliberately chosen to undertake the path that led to the more serious offence.

  2. The problem there Tim, is that “thepowersthatbe” no longer listen to anybodyexcept themselves–not in any context that matters anyway. While I have no regard for these rousted leftists the fact is that sooner or later we ordinary folk of this nation are going to have to get out on the streets and start breaking the heads of those who daily empty their bowels on us otherwise there is little hope of avoiding a soviet lifestyle for us all.

  3. going rioting while blown away on acid, booze and valium is so likely to end badly.
    Quite badly in this case.
    Thankfully, nobody got hurt due to young mr gilmour’s youthful stupidity, 16 months in pokey seems a bit harsh.

  4. “It works the other way round” does it?You think killing a harmless pisshead who was trying to get home and whom the police were” kettling” (ie illegally detaining) is equivalent to the actions of an upper-class attention seeker who did n’t actually harm anybody.
    Some equivalence.
    Brought out that the nasty Daily Hate Mail side in you has n’t it Worstall?The journalist was trying to draw attention to a less well-connected protestor who got 12 months for the Fortnum and Mason’s farrago.Not that you noticed.

  5. “having admitted that he had taken LSD and Valium prior to the protests, it’s arguable whether he was wholly responsible for some of his more extreme idiocy.”

    As he’s wholly responsible for having taken LSD and Valium prior to the protests, I wouldn’t have thought it’s arguable at all.

  6. @DBC: Tim said “if Master Gilmour had actually hurt someone he would have been charged with that, more grievous offence. And quite rightly too.” The policeman seems to have killed someone and is standing trial form manslaughter, the more grievous offence. Yep, that seems to be working the same the other way round…

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *