Cycling UK Forum

Whiff of Fascism? Really?

A toleration of a degree of violence perhaps; arguably a toleration of violence by members of the armed forces (although one case does not make a trend). But calling it Fascism is a bit much. Many extremes tolerate violence, both on the political left as well as the political right. Other extremes which cut across such simplistic modelling ot beliefs also tolerate violence by some members of the community. I do understand the frustration, but not all such tolerance can be labelled Fascist (which implies rather a lot more and much nastier things to accompanying it).

A couple more points:-

I think it can be taken for granted that the judge's comments about cyclists were prompted by things said by or on behalf of the defendant. There will have been a bit more in his police interview than has made it into the paper, which will have shown he felt he was justified in responding to "provocation." I fancy that he only pleaded guilty on legal advice that this provided no legal defence, but it probably arose in mitigation. Guilty pleas are now encouraged by substantial sentencing discounts to keep people out of gaol, thus saving £££.

Apart from this, the defendant's job probably reduced the sentencing options open to the judge eg some sort of community service (whatever they now call it) which is the next step down after custody, isn't compatible with things like being deployed abroad at short notice.

Soldiering must be one of the few jobs where a propensity for violence doesn't make somebody unsuitable.

Apart from this, the defendant's job probably reduced the sentencing options open to the judge eg some sort of community service (whatever they now call it) which is the next step down after custody, isn't compatible with things like being deployed abroad at short notice.

Soldiers are subject to the law the same as anyone else, or at least they should be. They are also subject to military law and everything that entails, such as bringing the Army into disrepute etc. Quite why the occupation of the attacker is in any way relevant in this or any other similar case is beyond me.

Soldiering must be one of the few jobs where a propensity for violence doesn't make somebody unsuitable.

Cycling must be one of the few hobbies, past times or sports where a propensity for sweeping statements is a requirement of membership!

gremlin wrote:Soldiers are subject to the law the same as anyone else, or at least they should be. They are also subject to military law and everything that entails, such as bringing the Army into disrepute etc. Quite why the occupation of the attacker is in any way relevant in this or any other similar case is beyond me.........

Agreed,everyone should be subject to the same treatment,though fines should be proportional to earnings IMO.

gremlin wrote:

Apart from this, the defendant's job probably reduced the sentencing options open to the judge eg some sort of community service (whatever they now call it) which is the next step down after custody, isn't compatible with things like being deployed abroad at short notice.

Soldiers are subject to the law the same as anyone else, or at least they should be. ...

I'd agree, and I don't think that I've said that this shouldn't be the case, in either the bit you've quoted or elsewhere.

The purpose of having the judge set the sentence at the end of a case, rather than having rigidly fixed penalties, is tailor the disposal to all the circumstances - in this case the defendant's employment as a soldier being one of them.

It seems to me that the first decision the judge had to make here was custodial or non-custodial? Some offending is so serious that custody is inevitable, some isn't. For the reasons he gave, he decided on non-custodial. My interpretation is that he decided not to lose the defendant his job. I think that decision would have had to be made had the defendant been in any steady employment - not the situation of a lot of people appearing before the courts. Having decided on non-custodial, the sentencing options are always partly influenced by a defendant's circumstances. A judge has very limited room to improvise. eg He couldn't say that instead of 240 hours community service, he wanted the sergeant major to give the defendant 240 hours of being chased about.

All I'm trying to do is to explain how I think these things work. I'll reiterate that I don't believe that the sentence was influenced by the target of the violence being "only a cyclist."

AlaninWales wrote:Whiff of Fascism? Really?

A toleration of a degree of violence perhaps; arguably a toleration of violence by members of the armed forces (although one case does not make a trend). But calling it Fascism is a bit much. Many extremes tolerate violence, both on the political left as well as the political right. Other extremes which cut across such simplistic modelling ot beliefs also tolerate violence by some members of the community. I do understand the frustration, but not all such tolerance can be labelled Fascist (which implies rather a lot more and much nastier things to accompanying it).

My bold and italics. I said a hint of fascism, as you've pointed out, fascism was your interpretation not mine. Fascism is an authoritarian and hierarchical system characterised by, amongst many other things, ignoring the human or constitutional rights of those lower in the pecking order and a love of the military and uniforms. There are some aspects of this case which resonate uncomfortably with this so it's a considered and fair comment.

I really do think that if the defendant in this case had been employed in any other steady job, he'd probably have avoided gaol. Had it been a civilian job, the sentence would have been some sort of community service combined with what used to be probation where there would have been some sort of anger management course included.

I'm basing this on experience of what happens.

I suspect that one reason this even made it into the local paper was that there was the possibility of a bit of controversy in the story line. It will have been competing for editorial attention with loads of cases where the violence was murder. (And I know that this could have ended up with a death but it didn't.)

The defendant in this case will probably serve a sentence in a real prison (military) not a relatively easy stay in decent accommodation, with better living conditions than the average old people home. So retribution will be done as he is subject to military law so his employment will make a difference to the overall punishment.

There was just something on the radio about a Scottish MP who violently abused three former wives and children, he got a 12 month sentence having expressed no remorse or interest in his victims.
So it is not just cyclists and pedestrians but anybody that is a victim of some sort of assault that the system does not really care about.
So it is good to read about a Judge at least once saying that this is not acceptable.

If the bloke had stolen some money from a bank with no person there. He would have been locked up for many years.

In this country money and goods are worth more than human life.

Edwards wrote:In this country money and goods are worth more than human life.

Without a doubt,though it depends on the life,if you're rich...................

MartinC wrote:

AlaninWales wrote:Whiff of Fascism? Really?

A toleration of a degree of violence perhaps; arguably a toleration of violence by members of the armed forces (although one case does not make a trend). But calling it Fascism is a bit much. Many extremes tolerate violence, both on the political left as well as the political right. Other extremes which cut across such simplistic modelling ot beliefs also tolerate violence by some members of the community. I do understand the frustration, but not all such tolerance can be labelled Fascist (which implies rather a lot more and much nastier things to accompanying it).

My bold and italics. I said a hint of fascism, as you've pointed out, fascism was your interpretation not mine. Fascism is an authoritarian and hierarchical system characterised by, amongst many other things, ignoring the human or constitutional rights of those lower in the pecking order and a love of the military and uniforms. There are some aspects of this case which resonate uncomfortably with this so it's a considered and fair comment.

Really?

MartinC wrote:Horizon, yes, I just found it a bit frustrating. The CPS did well in pressing the right charge in the Crown Court because they obviously felt it merited and would get meaningful sentence. It then ended up with a Judge whose said all the right things about cycling and then applied another cultural filter to the sentencing. At the end of the day it's just another example of egregious violence the judicial system's let pass. So yes, enlightened about cycling but still a faint whiff of fascism in other respects.

My bold and italics. Fascism was your word, not mine.
Fascism is a quite specific set of beliefs set out by Mussolini and others and is distinct from (for example) Maoism.
As I said, many other types of belief tolerate violence; there are other belief systems which are hierarchical and authoritarian. Other cultures also ignore the rights of those lower in the pecking order and love military and uniforms. Labelling such things 'facism' as you did, is an exquisitely simplistic viewpoint, I don't see any evidence (or "whiff") that the Judge in this case subscribes to facism. However, if that's how you choose to use the term I'll leave you to it.

Alan, you're indulging yourself in the proximity argument (c.f. Scott Adam). Yes, the word fascism did appear in my post (as it did yours) but the idea was heavily modified by the use of "faint whiff of" and was used to describe the way a set of rue were being applied not to anyone's political affiliations. So the idea that I was comparing the Judge with Mussolini or suggesting that he subscribes to a fascist organisation is a straw man of your own creation. Incidentally, I don't believe there's only one true definition of fascism - it's a bit authoritarian to believe there is.

It's very gracious of you to leave it to me.

Edwards wrote: ... In this country money and goods are worth more than human life.

Within our legal system that's not the case, but if you had said, "more than human suffering" I'd have agreed. It seems to me that one of the big problems - and this is repeatedly demonstrated with bad driving - is that there's a gap between killing somebody - especially deliberately killing somebody - and doing anything which could very easily have killed somebody.

(BTW, I'm not sure you are completely right about the military implications for the defendant in this case, but I don't know.)

thirdcrank wrote:I think the point here is that in spite of moves to make disqualification from driving available for any offence (and I don't know the current position with that) disqualification from driving isn't a sentencing option.

Section 146 of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 gives all courts this power (and there is a similar power where the vehicle has been used in the commission of a crime, in section 147).

The Court of Appeal have approved its use in situations of "road rage" attacks, although disqualification should not be used simply as a way of adding extra punishment - there ought to be some sort of rational link between what the offender has done and the Court disqualifying him from driving.

Richard D

Thanks for that. That legislation has been discussed on here at some length in at least one earlier thread, and IIRC, it wasn't initially available in all parts of the country. If it was available in this case, then it seems to be regrettable that it didn't form part of the sentence.

-----------------------------------------
When I was looking for the earlier thread I found this, which suggests that if a disqualification had been imposed, it might well have been overturned on appeal.

viewtopic.php?p=369673#p369673

He will be going to the guardroom commanding officers take a dim view of this sort of stuff so 28 days soldier on is the minimum he's facing with a trip to colchester the militarys corrective training establishment a distinct possiblity not a prison much much tougher.