May-Bowles / @JonnieMarbles jailed for attack on Parliament

[matgb]

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:

@Paul0Evans1 Paul Evans

The reaction to Johnny Marbles sentence (consensus: it was too heavy) shows how far Parliament has to explain why it deserves public respect

4:50 PM Aug 2nd via web Favorite

This sentence here to reflect a second addition has been made to this post as a result of feedback from comments.

Comments

[daweaver]

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.

[matgb]

I actually agree, I'd favour a very long sum of community service hours with a suspended sentence, but that's not what's been done, hence "got off likely".

And I have amended the post to reflect your accurate correction.

[rho]

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.)