Charlie Gilmour and Politically-Motivated Sentencing
Infantile Disorderh | 15.07.2011 13:31
Charlie Gilmour - the adopted son of Pink Floyd guitarist David Gilmour - was today sentenced to sixteen months in prison for an act of political dissent which injured no-one. But Gilmour's is just the latest in a string of heavy penalties imposed on protesters. Unmistakably, the aim of this sentencing - plus police repression of those they don't arrest on demonstrations - is to set a "deterrent" against protest itself.
Gilmour not harming anybody during last winter's student protests
Tactically, Gilmour's actions were misguided. Apparently under the influence of LSD and Valium, plus upset over an incident with his biological father, Gilmour climbed up the Cenotaph monument in Whitehall, and swung from a Union Jack. He was then involved with the group of students who confronted the car carrying Prince Charles and Camilla. Such behaviour could hardly have been calculated to provoke more outrage in the right wing press.
However, the fact remains that no-one was physically harmed by Charlie Gilmour that night. And yet he has lost his liberty for at least eight months, right at the time when he has graduated from university, and should have the opportunity to move on with his career.
Similarly, Francis Fernie was recently given a year inside for throwing two placard sticks at police following extreme provocation on the March 26th anti-cuts demonstration. The incident took place outside luxury shop Fortnum & Mason, as cops began a mass arrest, having gone back on their word not to arrest anybody if the protesters moved outside. The placards did not cause any injuries, and Judge Nicholas Price made it clear he was punishing Fernie for the actions of others not before the court. This is a clear abuse of his power, which makes a mockery of the legal system's supposedly liberal basis.
In January, Edward Woollard was sentenced to thirty-two months for dropping a fire extinguished from the roof of Millbank Tower during the brief student occupation of Tory HQ. His action was certainly foolish - there were hundreds of protesters below for a start - but again, no-one was harmed, and society would have been better served if no-one had been punished. Instead, Judge Geoffrey Rivlin declared that:
"If ever a case calls for a deterrent sentence, this is it. I wish to stress, however, that this is not a case of making an example of you alone. Anyone who behaves in this way and comes before the courts must expect a long sentence of custody."
It could be argued that other cases are far more deserving of a deterrent sentence, particularly those in which people - perhaps millions - have been physically or emotionally harmed. These are the crimes which our ruling class commits every day, be it incinerating Afghanis by remote control, hacking the mobiles of dead children, or cutting the social safety net which allows many British people to survive. These crimes go unpunished because the ruling class controls the legal system through its capitalist state, while the Gilmours, Fernies and Woollards are punished for precisely the same reason.
Gilmour, Fernie and Woollard all acted out of a kind of desperation, a desperation that produced individual responses to a problem that requires a collective solution. Ultimate political responsibility for their acts rests with the ruling class, and their hangers-on in the trade union bureaucracy, who have done their best to stifle and frustrate collective responses to the crisis.
There can be little doubt that ruling classes around the world are preparing for a massive confrontation with their working classes, and they will seek to sweep aside democratic aspirations in an effort to make the planet safe for the financial aristocrats. In answer, the working class must demand the release of all class struggle prisoners.
However, the fact remains that no-one was physically harmed by Charlie Gilmour that night. And yet he has lost his liberty for at least eight months, right at the time when he has graduated from university, and should have the opportunity to move on with his career.
Similarly, Francis Fernie was recently given a year inside for throwing two placard sticks at police following extreme provocation on the March 26th anti-cuts demonstration. The incident took place outside luxury shop Fortnum & Mason, as cops began a mass arrest, having gone back on their word not to arrest anybody if the protesters moved outside. The placards did not cause any injuries, and Judge Nicholas Price made it clear he was punishing Fernie for the actions of others not before the court. This is a clear abuse of his power, which makes a mockery of the legal system's supposedly liberal basis.
In January, Edward Woollard was sentenced to thirty-two months for dropping a fire extinguished from the roof of Millbank Tower during the brief student occupation of Tory HQ. His action was certainly foolish - there were hundreds of protesters below for a start - but again, no-one was harmed, and society would have been better served if no-one had been punished. Instead, Judge Geoffrey Rivlin declared that:
"If ever a case calls for a deterrent sentence, this is it. I wish to stress, however, that this is not a case of making an example of you alone. Anyone who behaves in this way and comes before the courts must expect a long sentence of custody."
It could be argued that other cases are far more deserving of a deterrent sentence, particularly those in which people - perhaps millions - have been physically or emotionally harmed. These are the crimes which our ruling class commits every day, be it incinerating Afghanis by remote control, hacking the mobiles of dead children, or cutting the social safety net which allows many British people to survive. These crimes go unpunished because the ruling class controls the legal system through its capitalist state, while the Gilmours, Fernies and Woollards are punished for precisely the same reason.
Gilmour, Fernie and Woollard all acted out of a kind of desperation, a desperation that produced individual responses to a problem that requires a collective solution. Ultimate political responsibility for their acts rests with the ruling class, and their hangers-on in the trade union bureaucracy, who have done their best to stifle and frustrate collective responses to the crisis.
There can be little doubt that ruling classes around the world are preparing for a massive confrontation with their working classes, and they will seek to sweep aside democratic aspirations in an effort to make the planet safe for the financial aristocrats. In answer, the working class must demand the release of all class struggle prisoners.
Infantile Disorderh
Homepage:
http://infantile-disorder.blogspot.com
Comments
Hide the following 8 comments
Gilmour and Fernie harshly treated
15.07.2011 19:27
Woollard, however deserves everything he got. Had the fire extinguisher he dropped struck someone they would certainly have been seriously injured or killed. It was the protesters who began chanting 'stop throwing shit', not the police.
Mike
Good luck to the prisoners
17.07.2011 10:40
Though I must say looking at this from an animal rights perspective that the sentencing seems quite light rather than severe.
anon
Why the censorship?
17.07.2011 15:28
?c=all
Mike
Wrong!
17.07.2011 21:48
What, a sentence of over 2.5 years for a first offender and a conviction that he'll have to carry around for the rest of his life with all that that entails for his future education, travel and employment prospects? Where have you come from, Tory Central Office?
"Had the fire extinguisher he dropped struck someone they would certainly have been seriously injured or killed."
But it didn't. No-one was injured (despite a WPC claiming that the extinguisher hit her leg when it clearly didn't). No-one was injured in any of the cases referred to. If you take what you're saying consistenly, then what Gilmour did was equally dangerous: the car he threw the bin at could have gone out of control and hit someone. It didn't. The sticks Fernie threw could have actually hit one of the cops. They didn't.
People should only be sentenced for what they did, not what "might have happened". The judge at Woollard's trial made no secret of the fact that the sentence was politically motivated and was intended to "send a message". That's what is fundamentally unjust. Crimes perceived to be against the established order and its precious property are routinely punished with greater severity than most crimes against people. I wonder why?
If any of these should have done prison time at all (a moot point), then Woollard should have got no more than a year, Gilmour no more than 9 months, and Fernie should have been given a suspended sentence.
TheJudge
Naive understanding of the law
17.07.2011 23:01
1. Just because no one was injured doesn't mean it isn't serious. It was pure luck that no-one was injured. I could fire a gun into a crowd of people, what you are saying is if i didn't hit anyone then i have done nothing wrong?
2. Gilmour equally dangerous?????!!!!! Throwing a bin at a car is not the same as throwing a fire extinguisher at a crowd of people from a very tall building.
3. Throwing sticks at people is not the same as throwing a fire extinguisher at a crowd of people from a very tall building.
People should only be sentenced for what they did, not what "might have happened".
1. Utter rubbish.
Again, if i fire a gun at people and miss then i should be let off because i didn't hurt anyone?
Or, if i drink and drive and don't happen to wipe out 20 pedestrians, then i'm totally innocent?
What about the deterence factor? If there was no deterent, then everyone would be throwing fire extinguishers off buildings.
2. They all pleaded guilty and were very remorseful of their actions and agreed they were idiots.
The judge at Woollard's trial made no secret of the fact that the sentence was politically motivated and was intended to "send a message".
1. You mean it was a deterrent? Yes, that is part of what sentences are for. If there was no deterent for robbing a bank, i'd rob one. However, I now make an informed decision (sentence against reward) and decide it is not worth it. Therefore the deterrent of the prison sentence works and prevents me robbing a bank.
That's what is fundamentally unjust. Crimes perceived to be against the established order and its precious property are routinely punished with greater severity than most crimes against people. I wonder why?
1. I have no idea what you are talking about. The guy(s) committed crimes and are being punished
If any of these should have done prison time at all (a moot point), then Woollard should have got no more than a year, Gilmour no more than 9 months, and Fernie should have been given a suspended sentence.
Sounds like you should train and become a judge if you are that concerned.
Yes, the sentences are harsh, but such is life. If you do the crime and you do it in the media spotlight then don't complain about the sentence because you have to be an idiot to think it is going to be light. Unfair? Maybe, but its a fact of life and to think otherwise is naive and stupid, and idealist.
ted morrison
gilmore
18.07.2011 07:34
Decides to have a prank and do f##k all with his pointless life.
He didnt kill anyone,ok. So what, he showed a disrespect to the people in general, I have met this type and they are the very worst of the capitalist scum.
first to throw the stones, first to cry to daddy to bring in the barrister when the cops finaly loos it with them.
If he want to swing on things then maybe a rope and a tyre...in a zoo...give the apes a day off.
Chucking stuff just ends a demo, it doesnt help anyones cause because the story turns from the message to the actions, which the majority dont want.
Only a few want violence, but are too gutless to admit that they dont give a crap about cause just effect...a fight.
These pampered prices all shout and want the world to burn, but with the resources at their comand through possision and money could bring about a better world, but no, swing on shit and throw stuff.
monkeys have done that for a long time and even they are higher up the food chain than the above named
anon by right
yawn
18.07.2011 15:10
1. I have no idea what you are talking about. The guy(s) committed crimes and are being punished
===========
It's completely obvious what he's talking about. People can abuse their power to authorise the hacking of dead children's phones, or kill a man on his way home from work and be sure the cops will do their best to cover it up and never have to proceed with any kind of prosecution. Over two years now since Ian Tomlinson's death and the copper responsible is still being paid a full salary by the state in return for no work. If the tories have their way with the dole, people may as well just go out and find someone poor to kill - guaranteed state pension.
In contrast, if I (not a copper or a senior journalist) lob a light piece of wood towards a copper, which could at most amount to a rogue splinter somehow making it through their riot gear inflicting a disgraceful two minutes of discomfort and in this case inflicting no pain whatsoever, you can trust those same journos and coppers to be outraged and leave no stone unturned hunting down the underclass scum and caging them for as many years as is fancied by whichever out-of-touch old toff is handing out sentences on the day.
judge judy
Wrong Again
19.07.2011 20:27
"I could fire a gun into a crowd of people, what you are saying is if i didn't hit anyone then i have done nothing wrong?"
No, because the firing of the gun was the wrongful act. That is what you should be punished for; not punished as if you had actually hit someone. This is where the sentences are wrong. If someone drives at 40mph in a 20mph residential area, should they - rather than be done for speeding - be treated as if they had knocked down and killed a child, even though they didn't?
"Or, if i drink and drive and don't happen to wipe out 20 pedestrians, then i'm totally innocent?"
No, you're guilty of drink-driving. But you are not guilty of causing the deaths of 20 pedestrians, and shouldn't be punished as if you were.
"If there was no deterent for robbing a bank, i'd rob one."
In which case, you have no moral right to condemn anyone.
"The guy(s) committed crimes and are being punished"
I do not dispute that what Gilmour, Fernie & Woollard did were crimes in the eyes of the laws which operate in this state. What I most strongly do dispute is that extreme sentences such as those they have received is in any way proportionate to the harm done. The sentences, and the nature of the charges against them, were/are clearly political in intent.
"Yes, the sentences are harsh, but such is life."
Easy for you to say sitting at home. What life do you think Woollard & Fernie will have once they get out, with so many doors to education, employment and travel slammed in their faces for years ahead?
"If you do the crime and you do it in the media spotlight then don't complain about the sentence because you have to be an idiot to think it is going to be light."
If you can't do the time, don't do the crime! Baaa! Baaa! Baaa!
"to think otherwise is naive and stupid, and idealist"
I'm glad that - nearing fifty - I haven't lost something of my idealism, rather than meekly accept the politicisation of sentencing like a good little consumer.
TheJudge