« Andrew Dilnot: The Government never kicked the Dilnot report into the long grass - it was a media fuss | Main | The Telegraph's Damian Reece explains why today's Libor report could scupper Lord Turner's Bank of England chances »

August 18, 2012

Comments

paul, bedfordshire

Had st paul's been razed to the ground and turned into a municipal swimming paul by a previous british government that killed millions of its own citizens before being rebuilt and restored only 10 years ago

I'm someone who performed lyrics such as "the lord is s...." would have been treated likewise over here. In fact I suspect if they insulted God in a non christian place of worship in the same words anywhere in the uk they would be facing seven years for inciting religious hatred.

Just because it had a political dimension does not excuse an act of religious hatred. The reporting on this has been woefully ingnorant. Good for Russia. Perhaps we will need liberating by Russia after all?

William MacDougall

This criminal group was convicted of interfering with the right to worship, "out of religious hatred". There is every reason to believe they are guilty, and two years is not excessive for this crime. If they had done it in a mosque would they have got as far as a courtroom?

Lewis

I am perfectly satisfied with the outcome to this case. The maximum possible sentence for the crime they committed was three years so 2 years in prison seems proportionate.

Of course, some of their supporters do not believe they have committed any crime and, even if they have, should get a light punishment. Well, I just wonder what sentence they would have got in most countries if they had gone into a mosque and sung disrespectful or insulting songs about Mohammed.

reasoninrevolt

What is this spasm of bile that passes for 'thought' in the comments above? Who cares if they'd have got an even longer sentence if they'd been in a mosque, or in a different country? How the hell does that make it okay?

Cleethorpes Rock

This is no different to what would happen in this country. I'm not sure why this obnoxious group are getting so much publicity.

Curious Cabbages

Peter Tatchell disrupted the Archbishop of Canterbury's sermon in Canterbury Cathedral on Easter Sunday, and was fined £18.60 plus costs. Do please spare me this ludicrous argument that the Russians have acted proportionately.

William MacDougall

Mr. Cabbages: Tatchell's fine was ludicrously low, the Pussy Riot sentence reasonable.

reasoninrevolt

William MacDougall, whether or not Tatchell's fine was 'low' is beside the point; whatever the size of the fine, as a form of punishment it was categorically different from that of Pussy Riot. A fine and a prison sentence are not the same thing. Cleesthorpes Rock is spot on.

reasoninrevolt

*Sorry, not Cleesthorpes Rock, I misread. Curious Cabbages is spot on.

Public Sector Worker

I cannot believe that an act of simple public disorder with a completely disproportionate sentence is viewed as ok by some on here.

Frankland Macdonald Wood

I think they had it coming to them for crimes against good taste, crimes against good fashion, and sore crimes against music.

Lewis

This was not a political protest - it was a hate crime. They deliberately chose to desecrate a site in a way designed to cause maximum distress to those of devout Orthodox persuasion. That is a hate crime and hate crimes should not be tolerated.

What amazes me is that some people believe a fine would have been sufficient punishment. Really? A punishment must also serve to deter and this group would have laughed at a fine. Indeed, they will probably gain financially from the publicity they generated by their outrageous act. Prison was therefore the only punishment that would have been appropriate.

I trust they won't get out after 6 months as would happen here!

The comments to this entry are closed.

Homepage

Categories

Options

Most Updated

Other Pages

Tracker

  • Extreme Tracking