Afternoon:
15°c
When A-level student Edward Woollard, who has this week been sentenced to 32 months in prison, threw an empty fire extinguisher off the roof of Millbank on November 10, it took about 10 seconds for the 4,000 other protesters gathered there to start a backlash.
I was there to protest. I watched with a thrill as students gathered in front of Tory party headquarters, lit fires and smashed windows, articulating their rage at a government that plans to sell their education to pay the debts of the rich. The mood was jubilant. Children dropped banners from the roof; a young couple kissed in the sunlight as protesters cheered, stamped, danced and sang songs of resistance.
When the fire extinguisher fell, however, the mood changed. These young people were not above vandalising the property of millionaire tax-dodgers but they didn't want anyone to get hurt.
Woollard was clearly given the harsh sentence as a deterrent but student protesters already do a surprisingly good job of deterring one another from crossing the line between vandalism and violence. As soon as Woollard lobbed his bizarre missile into the crowd, thousands of students and working Londoners from the growing anti-cuts movement immediately started chanting “Don't throw shit!”.
When the police began their investigation, many activists were happy to assist, keen to dissociate the marvellous, militant student protests from the actions of one teenage twit whose sense of civic responsibility is apparently even worse than his aim.
There's always one, at every protest: kids who get caught up in the thrill of being part of something bigger than themselves, and then jeopardise it for the rest by doing something stupid. Woollard's stunt allowed the mainstream media to vilify the student movement, branding all the protesters “thugs”, despite the fact that 52,000 young people marched to defend their free education and did not toss office appliances off roofs.
It bears repeating, however, that nobody actually got hurt that day. Woollard might have hit someone with that fire extinguisher but — crucially — he didn't. Even so, his sentence is a longer jail term than some of the sentences that have been handed down this week to men convicted of involvement in a Derby sex gang that groomed and raped dozens of underage girls, forcing them to be involved in pornography.
Does Woollard's spur-of-the-moment action really put him on a moral par with rapists and serial child molesters? That he committed a crime is beyond question. That his sentence was unnecessarily harsh is equally obvious. Being sent to jail for two and a half years at 18, coupled with the media witch-hunt that has branded him an irredeemable thug, will ruin Woollard's chances of getting a job and further education in later life.
No such witch-hunt has been pursued against those who really did perpetrate violence against people during last month's student protests. The police officer who pulled Jody McIntyre from his wheelchair is unlikely to face criminal charges.
The officer who beat Alfie Meadows until he bled into his brain is unlikely to spend two years in prison. Clearly, when it comes to protests, it's one rule for us and another for the authorities.
Laurie Penny is an activist and blogger
Reader views (41)
copper who killed was not even charged
- terry sullivan, morden england, 21/01/2011 15:46
Report abuse
- kate, london, 15/01/2011 10:39 asks "what on earth has gold and VAT and gordon brown got to do with this article?"
It is the way Gordon Brown ran the economy for 11 of New Labour's 13 years, and Blair's ridiculous "50 per cent of all school leavers should go on to university" that have created the financial mess tertiary education is now in. That's the relevance.
And please stop suggesting this potential killer is going to spend 32 months inside. Unless he misbehaves, he'll do half of that. And don't muddy the waters by linking a deliberate act of criminal behaviour with what you say was another.
It is only by chance that Woollard did not kill or seriously injure either a policeman or one of the protesters. If you point a gun at someone and it does not go off when you squeeze the trigger, that is attempted murder. What do you think was in Woollard's mind when he hurled that fire extinguisher into a dense moving crowd?
- Morena Thabo, London UK, 20/01/2011 22:48
Report abuse
- kate, london, 15/01/2011 10:39 asks "what on earth has gold and VAT and gordon brown got to do with this article?"
It is the way Gordon Brown ran the economy for 11 of New Labour's 13 years, and Blair's ridiculous "50 per cent of all school leavers should go on to university" that have created the financial mess tertiary education is now in. That's the relevance.
And please stop suggesting this potential killer is going to spend 32 months inside. Unless he misbehaves, he'll do half of that. And don't muddy the waters by linking a deliberate act of criminal behaviour with what you say was another.
It is only by chance that Woollard did not kill or seriously injure either a policeman or one of the protesters. If you point a gun at someone and it does not go off when you squeeze the trigger, that is attempted murder. What do you think was in Woollard's mind when he hurled that fire extinguisher into a dense moving crowd?
- Morena Thabo, London UK, 20/01/2011 22:47
Report abuse
"students ... marched to defend their free education"
This statement makes the writer sound clueless. If it were "free" then there would be no need for cuts, rioting, protests, etc. Meanwhile the kid's life is in ruins, he is paying dearly for his stupidity but that's the way it goes.
- Rich, New York City, USA, 17/01/2011 16:21
Report abuse
Too high a price, of course not. What would the mother of this jailed student be saying if another had thrown the fire extinguisher and it had killed her son?
- edwin, beaconsfield, bucks, 15/01/2011 18:05
Report abuse
Morena - what on earth has gold and VAT and gordon brown got to do with this article? Get over your "ugh! all their fault!" instincts and then think about the issues which are actually raised by this article.
Regardless of who is PM, is it right that this boy gets 32 months for not killing someone, whilst an officer of the met police can get away scott free with deliberately batoning someone over the head, inflicting a serious brain injury and then attempting to deny them hospital treatment?
- kate, london, 15/01/2011 10:39
Report abuse
Having not had the brains to go to university, before they became glorified degree mills, I may be out of my depth in commenting on a man throwing a fire extinguisher down into a crowded street. But, at 18, Woollard is considered (!!) an adult, so he should serve an adult sentence for his crime. As to what that crime was – attempted murder or just criminal damage – in the UK it is generally the result of the crime that determines the sentence not the intention; shooting and missing or fleeing from a hold-up with no loot will not carry the same sentence as wounding or killing, or getting away with goods or money. Woollard’s 32 months sentence will result in half that being served in jail, during which time he can reflect on his crime.
Avowed “socialist feminist” should reflect on what the judge said to Woollard: ‘‘Nevertheless I shall take into account in your favour the extraordinary and courageous conduct of your mother, which resulted in you giving yourself up to the police so quickly.” It was Woollard’s mother – not Woollard – who was behind him going to the police. Without the video evidence, this potential killer would most likely still be free to hurl more deadly missiles at anyone he does not like.
If “Scott of London” is typical of today’s students, where did he learn to spell the way he does? Let’s hope he is not a medical student who does not know the difference between various drug names, or a law student unable to tell “the rapists” from “therapists".
- Jackie, Totnes, UK, 15/01/2011 09:59
Report abuse
David of St Andrew’s sarcastically says of the police ordered to “turn up” by their superiors and there only because the expected violence unsurprisingly broke out, “There were a group of people who turned up to the demonstration armed with cudgels and systematically beat children about the head with them. None of them are likely to be prosecuted.” “Children”? Children murder, rape, thieve, make other children pregnant; give me as break from such nonsense. Woollard was still at school; was he, at 18, a schoolchild? A 14 year old “child” has been arrested for throwing a petrol bomb.
Ex Miner from Derby calls kettling “a political message”. Would like to tell us how the police should handle thousands of young (mostly) men intent on causing endless public disruption. Should they just walk casually behind them as the mob moves from street to street, smashing shop windows and damaging cars? Or should the police not be there at all? Or maybe use water cannon?
- Maria, Ramsgate England, 15/01/2011 01:21
Report abuse
Having not had the brains to go to university, I may be out of my depth in commenting on a man throwing a fire extinguisher down into a crowded street. But, at 18, Woollard is considered (!!) an adult, so he should serve an adult sentence for his crime. As to what that crime was – attempted murder or just criminal damage – in the UK it is generally the result of the crime that determines the sentence not the intention; shooting and missing or fleeing from a hold-up with no loot will not carry the same sentence as wounding or killing, or getting away with goods or money. Woollard’s 32 months sentence will result in half that being served in jail, during which time he can reflect on his crime.
Avowed “socialist feminist” should reflect on what the judge said to Woollard: ‘‘Nevertheless I shall take into account in your favour the extraordinary and courageous conduct of your mother, which resulted in you giving yourself up to the police so quickly.” It was Woollard’s mother – not Woollard – who was behind him going to the police. Without the video evidence, this potential killer would most likely still be free to hurl more deadly missiles at anyone he does not like.
If “Scott of London” is typical of today’s students, just where did he learn to spell the way he does? Let’s hope he is not a medical student who does not know the difference between various drug names, or a law student unable to tell “the rapists” from “therapists”.
- Jackie, Totnes, England, 15/01/2011 01:11
Report abuse
Bravo Ben, you managed to pick out that a dyslexic is bad at grammar. You must feel so empowered. I'm blinded, really? Let me guess... you're rich? I only make this assumption as most liberals are wealthy and think they're doing what's best for the country when in actual fact, they are making things worse. Right wing propaganda? You most likely don't see the negative effect that the welfare state has on our country. If it was up to you liberals, everyone would get free money, but then again, what do you care? You'll never see the ramifications living in your fanstasy land.
With regard to the student movement... I would like to point out that rioting, smashing windows and gernal vandalism is not the way to get your point across. I mean seriously, are you that stupid? The government would never respond favourably to such acts. If you really wanted to get your point across succesfully, you should have proceeded with peaceful protests (this is common knowledge). The black civil rights movment in America only succeeded beacuse of their peacful endeavours, as did the suffragists (compared to the suffragettes - whose militant actions only had an adverse effect).
This is a dreadful article Laurie, honestly. Romanticising the protests is ridiculous, are you looking for a repeat of mai 68? I don't think you understand the serious implications of a further shift in principals towards liberalism. I sincerely hope that you and all your liberal peers get a grip on reality soon.
- scott, London, 14/01/2011 22:35
Report abuse
Luke from Aberystwyth should use a spelling checker if he wants his views taken seriously. If he’s s student, do we want such semi-literate people instructing us on what is democracy? There’s enough video footage and also stills on You Tube showing so-called students attacking mounted police officers for the gist of Cameron’s statement to be shown to be true. And what about events not on camera?
Luke’s “ridiculously high tuition fees” should be seen alongside Blair’s ridiculous “fifty per cent of all school leavers should go to university”. Ninety per cent of school leavers haven’t the intellect to benefit from real universities. Most so-named today are little more than degree factories. Yes, Luke:
TIME TO WAKE UP BRITAIN!
Kdot of London is right about the contrast between what already cosseted British schoolchildren receive from the taxpayer and what Martin Luther King stood for – and was murdered for. Today’s British students (or the protesters) should be grateful for their parents’ and others’ taxes, and not expect more and more jam on their already well-buttered bread. If 18 is the start of adulthood, then let’s see them behaving with maturity.
- Morena Thabo, London UK, 14/01/2011 22:15
Report abuse
David of St Andrew’s sarcastically says of the police ordered to “turn up” by their superiors and there only because the expected violence unsurprisingly broke out, “There were a group of people who turned up to the demonstration armed with cudgels and systematically beat children about the head with them. None of them are likely to be prosecuted.” “Children”? Children murder, rape, thieve, make other children pregnant; give me as break from such nonsense. Woollard was still at school; was he, at 18, a schoolchild? A 14 year old “child” has been arrested for throwing a petrol bomb.
Ex Miner from Derby calls kettling “a political message”. Would like to tell us how the police should handle thousands of young (mostly) men intent on causing endless public disruption. Should they just walk casually behind them as the mob moves from street to street, smashing shop windows and damaging cars? Or should the police not be there at all? Or maybe use water cannon?
- Morena Thabo, London UK, 14/01/2011 22:13
Report abuse
Ben of Cambridge calls Scott “barely literate and blinded by right-wing media propaganda”. After over a decade of state (?) education, Scott is sadly not alone in being barely literate. But is right-wing propaganda any worse than any other? It was 13 years of Gordon Brown doing such things as selling of half our undervalued gold reserves and pushing up every tax but income tax and VAT that got us into the present mess.
Dominic from London is absolutely right about policemen and policemen getting away with things others would be done for. But that does not take away anything from what Woollard did. His sentence is much nearer the mark than the ASBOs, etc thieves, robbers, burglars, drug sellers (and users) routinely receive.
Minny from London should open her eyes and look at the way the extinguisher fell just three feet from those on the ground if she really believes “ doubt there was intention to hurt someone”. If she is a student, let’s hope she is not taking media studies.
- Morena Thabo, London UK, 14/01/2011 22:11
Report abuse
Having not had the brains to go to university, I may be out of my depth in commenting on a man throwing a fire extinguisher down into a crowded street. But, at 18, Woollard is considered (!!) an adult, so he should serve an adult sentence for his crime. As to what that crime was – attempted murder or just criminal damage – in the UK it is generally the result of the crime that determines the sentence not the intention; shooting and missing or fleeing from a hold-up with no loot will not carry the same sentence as wounding or killing, or getting away with goods or money. Woollard’s 32 months sentence will result in half that being served in jail, during which time he can reflect on his crime.
Avowed “socialist feminist” should reflect on what the judge said to Woollard: ‘‘Nevertheless I shall take into account in your favour the extraordinary and courageous conduct of your mother, which resulted in you giving yourself up to the police so quickly.” It was Woollard’s mother – not Woollard – who was behind him going to the police. Without the video evidence, this potential killer would most likely still be free to hurl more deadly missiles at anyone he does not like.
If “Scott of London” is typical of today’s students, just where did he learn to spell the way he does? Let’s hope he is not a medical student who does not know the difference between various drug names, or a law student unable to tell “the rapists” from “therapists”.
- Morena Thabo, London UK, 14/01/2011 22:10
Report abuse
Edward,
I don't know whether you will read this. If you or family do, then I just wanted to say how very very very sorry I am at this over harsh sentence. I hope that when you come out you will either go into politics or read Law at University. I have no doubt that this is a political act - no doubt the conservatives don't want a repeat of the miner's riots which occured during the last Conservative government. It is foolish perhaps to throw a fire extinguisher - but to my mind it is 1000 times more wrong to give a deliberately harsh sentence to make a political point. The law should be such that the same sentence is always given for the same crime- and the law should be independent of politics. DO NOT let anyone kid you that you have committed some huge crime, you made a mistake, but we all do. This is not about what you did.
Two years isn't such a long time. I am so sorry. All the best and DON'T LET THE B's GET YOU DOWN!!!!!
- Fliss, Ilford, Essex, 14/01/2011 21:26
Report abuse
Bravo Ben, you managed to deduce that a dyslexic is bad at grammar. You must feel so empowered. I'm blinded, really? Let me guess... you're rich? I only make this assumption as most liberals are wealthy and think they're doing what's best for the country when in actual fact, they are making things worse. Right wing propaganda? You most likely don't see the negative effect that the welfare state has on our country. If it was up to you liberals, everyone would get free money, but then again, what do you care? You'll never see the ramifications living in your fanstasy land.
With regard to the student movement... I would like to point out that rioting, smashing windows and gernal vandalism is not the way to get your point across. I mean seriously, are you that stupid? The government would never respond favourably to such acts. If you really wanted to get your point across succesfully, you should have proceeded with peaceful protests (this is common knowledge). The black civil rights movment in America only succeeded beacuse of their peacful endeavours, as did the suffragists (compared to the suffragettes - whose militant actions only had an adverse effect).
This is a dreadful article Laurie, honestly. Romanticising the protests is ridiculous, are you looking for a repeat of mai 68? I don't think you understand the serious implications of a further shift in principals towards liberalism. I sincerely hope that you and all your liberal peers get a grip on reality soon.
- scott, london, 14/01/2011 19:19
Report abuse
Thank you Laurie... I was reading various articles trying to decide if the 32 month sentence was right or not. I was leaning against the sentence until I read your article, and decided that the sentence is fair and just.
- Hadi, London, UK, 14/01/2011 11:29
Report abuse
Laurie Penny is right that the sentence is out of proportion when compared to that of the Derby sex gang members. Can't agree with the conclusion though - where Laurie seems to imply that this means Wollard's sentence should have been lower, I rather think it highlights how ridiculously light the sentencing is for crimes like rape and murder. The Derby rapists ought to be put away for *much* longer than they have been.
- Stu, Watford, 14/01/2011 11:01
Report abuse
You're a student Scott? Thankfully I don't think you're representative of the vast majority of students in the UK but you may be a good indicator of why it has taken so long for today's student movement to mobilise - barely literate and blinded by right-wing media propaganda.
- Ben, Cambridge, UK, 14/01/2011 11:00
Report abuse
I feel like my eyes and brain have just been raped, brutally sodimized by your rediculous article. Honestly, you have literally stolen a minute of my life, which I will subsequetnly never get back.
I find it laughable how you write with such passion and conviction over the tution fees. I mean the way you describe the protest, it honestly makes me believe that you see it as compartiable to "real" past time issues such as the vietnam War. Likewise, you make it sound like it's the Martin Luthor King Movment of our generation which, is the main reason I found this artcile to be so rediculous in the first place.
You see i'm a student and I see this is as sweet justice for all you self deluded idiots who put Nick Clegg and the liberals into power in the first time.
I also find it funny how you see the government as "selling your education to pay the debts of the rich." This, I have to say, was one of the stupidest comments in the whole article. I mean really, that's what you think this is a result off. Yes, that's right, the country's plight is a repercussion of the rich, it has nothing to do with the millions of people in our socialist country how can't be arsed working but, somehow still manage to walk away with my god damm pay check. Seriously, are you that stupid?
This is the problem with our country. People like you think their owed something, think their entitled to something. No, it's called work, maybe all you liberals should try it sometime.
- scott, london, 14/01/2011 04:59
Report abuse
I suppose any sympathy for your article by "sane" members of the English public is obliterated by the "thrill" with which you watched as students gathered to light fires and smash windows.
I can agree with you that it is an unfortunate sentence for the young man. I don't get the slightest feeling that Mr Woollard is a "menace to society" or a thug as his sentence might suggest.
What is clear though is that in some ways he acted like one and this sentence is clearly meant to serve as a deterrent to those who might wish to follow suit.
However, what I am amazed by is the impunity with which you have written this article. It doesn't appear to me like you see anything wrong with the vandalism and hooliganism of your peers just because they feel like they have been wronged by the government. Martin Luther King Jr. led non-violent marches against a racist society in his day and you act like there is no other way to prove a point besides violence.
Mr Woollard suffered as a scapegoat but really it is people like yourself and his fellow students who encouraged him in his violence that are to blame.
Quite clearly (and we read that the student protest was his first unsupervised visit to London) he was egged on or at least influenced by the "hype" and unruliness with which you arrayed yourselves and that has led him to his current regrettable position.
You should be apologising to him and the rest of the British public for selfishly putting the lives of many at risk.
- Kdot, London, 14/01/2011 01:00
Report abuse
ex iner the tores are expecting a fight like the miners strike, thats why theY're cutting poliCe by 25%
- john reid, London U,.K, 14/01/2011 00:14
Report abuse
"It bears repeating, however, that nobody actually got hurt that day. Woollard might have hit someone with that fire extinguisher but — crucially — he didn't."
An elementary moral principle is that we should judge actions based on what might have happened; not what did happen. If a terrorist plants a bomb that doesn't go off, that doesn't make the decision to act any better.
That protester knew that throwing a heavy object off a multi-story building onto a crowd below would kill or seriously injure anyone it hit.
Think about what your opinion would be if it were an EDL member carring out the same act at one of their events.
- Bill, Aberdeen, 13/01/2011 22:30
Report abuse
I find it fascinating that the vast amount of people commenting here have completely ignored the point of Penny's article.
I don't support the damage caused by the protestors, but most commentators here seem to be deliberately ignoring the fact that while Woolard hurt no one, he will go to jail for his actions but the police officers who assaulted Jody McIntyre in his wheelchair and beat Alfie Meadows into bleeding into his brain and needed to be hosptitalised will not go to jail and will likely not even be censured for their actions.
Please feel free to ignore my comments and solely focus on Penny being a supporter of the protesters yet again.
- dominic, London, 13/01/2011 20:51
Report abuse
That the sentence lacks proportionality is obvious. If Woolard had, for instance, driven his car into a wall, nearly - but not actually - hitting someone, the police wouldn't have bothered to notice unless someone rubbed their noses in it. He might have gotten done for Due Care if he'd narrowly missed a constable, and maybe received half a column inch in the local freesheet. He wouldn't have been hunted down like a dog and prosecuted to the full extent of the law.
This is as much a warning, to those who would exercise their right to protest, as the punches, kicks, clubbings and kettlings that have been meted out to others.
- Richard, Bath, B&NES, 13/01/2011 20:37
Report abuse
“Threw an empty fire extinguisher off the roof of Millbank on November 10,” It didn’t matter if it was empty or full, it would still cause the same damage, height high-speed = possible death if it hit someone. He throw it, even if his intention wasn’t to hit anyone but the intention to cause serious injury or death was there, his sentence reflected this.
“I watched with a thrill as students gathered in front of Tory party headquarters, lit fires and smashed windows, articulating their rage” am glad you got a “thrill” of the damage that was done, would you have the same “thrill” if you had to pay for the damage, of course you wouldn’t.
“Even worse than his aim. “That’s the point, he wasn’t aiming for anything or anyone. He didn’t care. Where it landed or who it would hit, hurt or kill.
“There's always one” and another point there wasn’t just one there was hundreds who lit and smashed windows, who throw missiles at police, and as you said, “you got a thrill”.
So think about this: if am standing on a roof, and you walk by, and I throw a fire extinguisher, and it misses you would you still get a “thrill”. would I have committed a crime? Would I get a smack on the wrist? Would you not press charges!
Your whole article is full of holes, but that’s ok, as long as you got a “thrill” and caught up in the moment of violence, destruction and mayhem and let the tax payer cough up more money in a time of job uncertainty, struggling to make ends meat, people losing their jobs.
- Scott, London, 13/01/2011 20:09
Report abuse
I had the opportunity to attend the protest in question, but was unable to as i had a stack of work to get done. How many others failed to turn up because of the same reason, or just because they couldn't afford it, as most of the maintainence loans given out by the student finance organization arent even enough to cover rent bills. I think people underestimate the support and following of the student opposition to these ridiclously high tuition fees.
Shall we not forget that protesting is a way of democracy. Such heavy handed policing is no doubt a mechanism to deter potential future protesters, as the police seem to have no discresion and no moral in beating whichever person is infront of them, if they do not jump when they are told or move when they are unable. The very thought that people are being so savagely beaten and the culprits are represented by the twisted and biased media as upstanding citizens, should make any real upstanding citizen want to take action and get to the bottom of the spin that, not only the main stream media, but Mr. Cameron himself has adopted to demonize the whole student movement on account of the very few who either over reacted or were provoked into violence by such iron fisted police tactics. Mr. Camerons words exactly were "scenes of policemen being dragged off police horses and beaten" - this never actually happened. But everyone is so docile, they accept whatever they hear or read. TIME TO WAKE UP BRITAIN!
- Luke, Aberystwyth, Wales, 13/01/2011 20:05
Report abuse
Now that Woollard has been sentenced, I have only one question....
When is PC Simon Harwood, going to be charged for attacking Ian Tomlinson at the G20?
The answer is NEVER.
One rule for us, another for them.
- Ex Miner, Derby, UK, 13/01/2011 19:39
Report abuse
Woollard was a fool. I suspect he knew it within seconds of hearing the crowd below booing his actions. He deserved to be convicted.
However, 36 months in jail for NEARLY hurting someone is a calculated political message to protesters, as is the persistent use of "kettling" by the Met.
The Tories are expecting a fight, and they are signalling that they are ready to "go the distance". Whatever it takes to overcome dissent, they will do. Just like Maggie during the Miners Strike.
- Ex Miner, Derby, UK, 13/01/2011 19:34
Report abuse
Put aside your feelings about the sentence this guy got, the contrast with the speed and treatment in the media and by authorities of an officer who nearly killed a protestor is astonishing. Let's not forget that after he had almost been killed by one officer, his colleagues then sought to prevent him being treated in hospital thus further endangering his life. The police were at least equally reckless with the life of an innocent young man, and if you think they should be able to get away scott-free with this sort of brutality then I hope that next time it's you who feels the brunt.
- kate, london, 13/01/2011 19:22
Report abuse
There were a group of people who turned up to the demonstration armed with cudgels and systematically beat children about the head with them. None of them are likely to be prosecuted.
- David, St Andrews UK, 13/01/2011 19:21
Report abuse
Penny, I do hope you read this, because I take serious exception to your comment "Woollard might have hit someone with that fire extinguisher but - crucially - he didn't." This is ridiculous. The fact it didn't hit and probably kill someone is pure luck and almost irrelevant. A sentence akin to manslaughter would not be harsh.
If a terrorist bomber plants a bomb that explodes but - "crucially" - doesn't hurt anyone, would you also consider it harsh to give him a life sentence?
- Mark, London, 13/01/2011 19:03
Report abuse
Laurie, His sentence was towards the harsh end of what could be expected - but it could be expected. He was entirely reckless as to whether he'd injure or kill someone.
You say "there's always one" - but it wasn't only one Laurie, millions of people have watched live broadcasts of hundreds of people repeatedly throwing sticks and other missiles at the police. It is not acceptable and it disgraces a very worthy cause.
You come across like a child playing an exciting game - it's no game - it's a serious business, and if you want to be on the side of right, you have to play by the rules even when your opponents don't.
- Stephen, Leighton Buzzard, 13/01/2011 17:54
Report abuse
Shocking that the Standard provides a platform to this idiotic and misconceived drivel. For attempted murder, Wollard has got off pretty lightly.
- Lord Hingebottom, Hingebottom Bay, UK, 13/01/2011 17:34
Report abuse
Overgrown schoolkid saying "Let's play pirates".
He'll find some real pirates inside.
- Jonathan Begg, London W2 4RD, 13/01/2011 17:05
Report abuse
The sentence was about right but his intention was nothing short of imbecilic ignorance. Had the extinguisher made contact with some poor unfortunate, the charge would of been far more serious.
As for the writer actuall feeling a "thrill" at these morons trashing property and lighting fires. Only goes to prove what lunacy can be developed through education!
Come to think of it, had the extinguisher landed upon her head, the damage would have been minimal due to no important substance being present in there.
- Lancy Lad, Dark North, 13/01/2011 16:54
Report abuse
I was surprised at myself, but I'm of the same opinion, Laurie. Expressing it on another talkboard saw me vilified by other posters. Most people will disagree vehemently with you for sure.
- Ruth, London, UK, 13/01/2011 16:20
Report abuse
If it had hit someones head they would be dead.He deserves the sentence, if not longer. Just because people agree with the reason for the protest does not justify this act.
- knefty, london e15, 13/01/2011 15:53
Report abuse
I agree with Ms Penney. The punishment does not fit the crime. Community service would have been better. Mr Woollard was a idiot but I doubt there was intention to hurt someone - maybe he should have raped, assaulted or actually killed someone and his sentence would have been lighter! It's a bout time our antiquated laws were changed - Queen Victoria reigns no more!
- Minny, london, 13/01/2011 15:10
Report abuse
What a stupid article, from what appears to be bad reporting, how dare Laurie Penny, it would have been better, had his sentence, been closer to ten years, perhaps then that would have wiped the smile, that you said you had, when the protest started, clean of your face.
- terry, london, 13/01/2011 15:03
Report abuse
If a junior banker waded into a bunch of police with a gun outside a nightclub in the City, firing one shot but not hitting anyone would you have the same view?
- ST, London, 13/01/2011 14:30
Report abuse
