matgb: Artwork of 19th century upper class anarchist, text: MatGB (Default)
Mat Bowles ([personal profile] matgb) wrote2011-08-02 04:11 pm

May-Bowles / @JonnieMarbles jailed for attack on Parliament

Jonathan May-Bowles is, as far as I'm aware, no relative of mine. This is good, because while I and my family have done some daft things in our time, directly attacking Parliament isn't something I'd particularly like to be associated with. 'Jonnie Marbles' jailed
Sentencing May-Bowles, district judge Daphne Wickham said the aim of the attack was to disrupt proceedings, which were of "of huge importance" ... "This is a parliamentary process, which as you know conducts itself with dignity and in a civilised fashion. Everybody else in the room expected that, with one exception - you.

"You attended those proceedings with only one intention, to disrupt them."
That the subject of his attack was a noxious git who I dislike intensely is irrelevent. A witness giving evidence to Parliament during a parliamentary enquiry was attacked in a clear attempt to disrupt the enquiry.

I believe, fundamentally, in the principles of Parliamentary democracy. I believe that in this country Parliament is not strong enough and needs trengthening signiificantly in many ways--it's the stated objective of this Government to do some of these things, I don't think they're going far enough.

Jonathan May-Bowles "was ordered to serve three weeks in prison and pay a £15 victim surcharge and £250 costs." He got off lightly.

Addendums:This Tweet is also relevent though:
daweaver:   (redlightdoor)

[personal profile] daweaver 2011-08-02 05:51 pm (UTC)(link)
I'm torn on this one. On the one hand, we have parliament trying to find out the facts about something. I'm all in favour of that, because evidence-based action is good. Forcing the unelected to account for their actions is a salutory lesson, proving that no-one is beyond the law.

On the other hand, there comes a point when jail terms are so short as to be a waste of the system's time. The public won't be protected from a serious criminal, he won't be re-integrated, the only reason this chap's being jailed is for retribution. And I don't think the criminal justice system should run on retribution at all. Personally, I'd rather have seen a long community service order: the man's got energy to channel.

And on a point of pedantry, "addenda" suggests there's more than one thing being added.

[personal profile] rho 2011-08-02 06:56 pm (UTC)(link)
I don't think it's entirely true to say that the only reason he's been jailed is retribution. I think there is likely also an element of deterrent involved here, and I do believe that sending out a message to any other would-be parliamentary-disruptors is not a bad thing. It's certainly far more worthy than retribution. That said, I do agree with you that community service would have been a more appropriate sentence.

(Whether the criminal justice system actually works as a deterrent is another matter and is up for debate, but I believe that that is generally considered to be one of its goals, and is definitely something I'd consider more worthy than retribution, which I agree should not be a factor at all.)