Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
News
Original poster

16 Months For Charlie Gilmour (Student Fees Demo)

212 replies

LemonDifficult · 15/07/2011 14:44

I wasn't very sympathetic to the rioters but 16 months seems a long time to put someone this young away for. Ridiculous. He'll get the fright of his life in the first few weeks and then what? What's the point of all those extra months - at tax payers expense.

I guess he won't do the full term, but still. It seems crazy.

OP posts:
2shoes · 16/07/2011 10:38

i missed the bit that he is 21, so an adult. so should know better.
worries me if this is the kind of person that we now have going to university, I always thought you had to be iteligent

moondog · 16/07/2011 10:51

God, my opinion of him has slumped to new depths.He argued the point about being adopted in mitigation? Jesus, is there no end to the current vogue for claiming victim status? It's on a par with the unspeakable Diane Abbot claiming (on MN) that her son was disadvantaged because his mother is an MP.

Loathsome people.

moondog · 16/07/2011 10:51

'worries me if this is the kind of person that we now have going to university, I always thought you had to be iteligent'

Indeed 2shoes

Riveninside · 16/07/2011 11:15

Nah, not for cambridge. Its what school you went too.

arazmataz · 16/07/2011 11:43

Actually it sounds like Heathcote Williams is the one who should be put away, or at least sent the taxpayers' bill for the privilege of feeding and housing his son for eight months. If Gilmour's defence is to be believed, Williams cut off all contact and sent his son mad. Mind you, if Charlie was already an addict, no contact is a more understandable position.

Slebs and their kids, eh.

Riveninside · 16/07/2011 11:45

Never heard of heathcote williams. Oddly enough though, the name heathcote is suddenly all overbthe place. And not pronounced how i first thought.

arazmataz · 16/07/2011 11:47

He should be made to account for himself!

ilovemydogandMrObama · 16/07/2011 11:56

Think 16 months is quite a harsh sentence. he pleaded guilty early, was genuinely remorseful, first offence.

Agree with Edam that there isn't a specific criminal offence in regards to attacking Prince Charles' car, although almost certainly it was in the mind of the judge when determining the sentence.

It's a head on a pike scenario.

animula · 16/07/2011 13:05

I think it's harsh. Didn't post earlier because I thought that would absolutely be the consensus view.

gazzalw · 16/07/2011 13:21

I do think he's been made an example of and didn't help that it was HRH's car that he attacked. Never having taken LSD but having read how mind-altering it is, can imagine that he probably wasn't really aware of what he was doing at all.
21 still isn't really that grown up (for all that they think they are) - with his glasses and short hair, when he turned up to Court, he looked very young and quite vulnerable.
At least he has his Mother and Dave Gilmour behind him...

breadandbutterfly · 16/07/2011 22:41

I think 16 months is too long - I don't think it's fair to sentence him more harshly just because he's got a famous dad - which is what happened. People were shocked over the cenotaph incident - but it was the discovery that he was rich and had a famous dad and in fact was totally removed on a personal level from ever needing to worry about paying university fees or anything else that made people's blood boil.

I was shocked by the cenotaph incident too. But now O just feel really sorry for him. He's a big stupid kid, not a deliberate criminal. As others have said, if you locked up everyone who'd ever got drunk/stoned and thrown a bin, you'd have very, very full prisons.

I don't approve of making examples of people because they happen to be related to a celebrity.

2shoes · 16/07/2011 22:48

kid he is 21,
surely by that age he is an adult.

Riveninside · 16/07/2011 22:50

Yes and no. The average 21 yo appears to be a giant kid nowadays. I bet half the students are in catered halls with cleaners Nd so have no life experience.
Heck, i see people acting like kids at 26. I had 3 kids of my own by then!

ToothbrushThief · 17/07/2011 07:46

My daughter is 19 in uni and is not catered. She works two jobs to finance her way through uni.

There are some who are very priveledged and are financed by mummy and daddy and tbh from a brief anecdotal description they do tend to be the ones who run riot, drink all night and act irresponsibly.

DD does party but it's limited by cash and the fact that she has to get up early to fit study and work in.

If she had commited these crimes (unthinkable to me tbh) I wonder what sentence she would have had?

TheHumanCatapult · 17/07/2011 08:16

21 a kid , lol for crying out loud my 17 or 14 yo could tell you that was wrong infact so could my 8yo .

and sorry the fact he was of his head on LSd is no exscuse .He choose to take the drug .Plenty of other people have a hard life and have to overcome problems and dont feel the need to do what he did

Riveninside · 17/07/2011 10:20

Perhaps its just cambridge. I have a child there and she is astonished. I wish she would leave to be honest. So pleased ds isnt going there. Rich privilaged twats many of them. Add drink and drugs and its a disaster.
Mind you, reminded me of the Bullingdon Club. How come they didnt get jailed?

sue52 · 17/07/2011 11:27

They ended up ruining the country or is that running the country?

Riveninside · 17/07/2011 11:28
Grin
Chummybud1 · 17/07/2011 13:10

16 months is ridiculous they are making an example of him, he should receive sentence for his crime not for who it was against. One law system should fit all not depending on who the crime is against

Ponders · 17/07/2011 14:39

\link{http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/libertycentral/2011/jul/15/charlie-gilmore-silenced-in-court?INTCMP=SRCH\excellent piece in the Graun yesterday}

'Despite the piecemeal nature of sentencing for those convicted of violent disorder (there are currently no sentencing guidelines in the crown court), comparatively speaking Gilmour's fate seems to be hugely disproportionate and unfair. He simply should not be imprisoned for crimes that hurt nobody. This is a conviction that raises a hackneyed question, so often mooted during the phone-hacking scandal: cui bono?'

my italics. So the judges in cases like this can be as harsh or lenient as they like. That's wrong for a start Angry

ApocalypseCheeseToastie · 17/07/2011 14:45

Meh, he'll be in an open prison within weeks.

Would bloody love to be a fly on the wall when he needs to pick his soap up in the showers tho Wink

Riveninside · 17/07/2011 14:52

Why toastie? You think the potential for rape might be funny? I'm not liking some if this gloating.

mayorquimby · 17/07/2011 14:55

whoah whoah whoah, hold on here. The Guardian are on the side of the well off student protestor? Shock

Ponders · 17/07/2011 14:58

why not?

but it was an opinion column by Ellie Mae O'Hagan, co-editor of New Left Project (have no idea what that is but sounds anti-Establishment)

ApocalypseCheeseToastie · 17/07/2011 15:15

Oh FFS, it was obviously a tongue in cheek joke, along with soap on a rope and files in cakes.

There will be no potential for rape I imagine as he will be classed as 'high risk' and will be protected I imagine. He will no doubt be appealing his sentence and be released early.

There are miscarraiges of justice on a daily basis, far worse than some boozed up toff dosed up on too many drugs (they can afford the good stuff I imagine ) and too much drink being a twat in public. You never know, it might be the making of him, I can't imagine he'll be wanting to go back.