Show Hide image

Does Charlie Gilmour really deserve a 16-month jail sentence?

Yes, he acted like an idiot, but he's also an ideal tabloid scapegoat.

If the British justice system is truly designed to punish people for being utter prats, we all know one or two people who belong in Belmarsh. Well, now that Charlie Gilmour, the Cambridge student who swung from the Cenotaph during the 9 December riots, has gone down for 16 months, I'm sure we will all sleep safer in our beds.

Charlie Gilmour is a PR disaster for the student movement. I met him on the night before his monumental bender, as someone's reprobate brother who had turned up at the UCL occupation to party.

We had an altercation on the smoking steps whose content is now lost to memory but which ended in me storming off, and Charlie staggering after me, grabbing me in a half-headlock and demanding that I sign a piece of paper on which he had hastily scrawled 'Charlie Gilmour is not a misoginist [sic]'.

By the time I had patiently explained that this might not fix whatever it was he had just done, he was already tearing off to disrupt a planning meeting. I remember remarking to a friend: 'That guy is a liability. He's going to give us all a bad name.".

I have every reason to consider Charlie Gilmour a prize dickhead. But 16 months? Really? Sixteen months for going on a bender and attempting to damage some property? Sixteen months for setting fire to some newspaper and jumping on the bonnet of a car?

Charlie Gilmour is many things, but he's not dangerous, unless you happen to be a bottle of Gordon's Gin. Meanwhile, it seems unlikely that whoever, at the same protest, beat 20-year-old Alfie Meadows until he bled into his brain, will be facing charges; in fact, Alfie himself is now amongst the many young protesters up on charges of violent disorder this summer, presumably for headbutting a police baton.

Gilmour is, of course, the ideal tabloid scapegoat for those who would prefer to believe that all young people involved in political struggle are spoilt, drug-addled and reckless. It's a perfect way of whipping up outrage against activists who have a sustained critque of government-imposed austerity, and of dissuading others from joining them.

While Gilmour was not sentenced for his actions at the Cenotaph, he was told that his actions were 'reprehensible', and that the eminence of the occupants of the car had been taken into account. So it's not about throwing a rubbish bin at a Roller - it's about throwing a rubbish bin at a convoy containing the heir to the throne. In swinging off the Cenotaph, he broke the unspoken rules of the King-and-Country brigade. 'You showed disrespect to those who made the ultimate sacrifice defending this country," said Judge Price, who last week sent 20-year-old Frank Fernie to jail for a year for throwing sticks at the TUC demonstration in March.

This is British justice. Over the past six months, 200 police officers have been dedicated to hunting down and punishing students and school-age protesters as part of Operation Malone and Operation Brontide. Meanwhile, a senior Metropolitan police officer devoted less than eight hours to reviewing the original News of the World phone-hacking investigation.

When the photos of Gilmour's rampage dominated the front pages after 9 December, leaving no space for any discussion of police violence or the confiscation of public university provision, many activists were furious with Charlie Gilmour for giving us all a bad name. Now he's been sent to prison on their behalf, along with many genuine protesters, it's the justice system that people are angry with.

Charlie Gilmour behaved like a massive prat, but being a massive prat is not a crime, and nor is being young and foolish. He has been sent to jail purely because he makes a good scapegoat, and to indulge tabloid hand-wringing about disrespect for those who lost their lives in war.

Well, there's disrespect and disrespect. Right now, a cross-party consensus is tearing up the 1945 Attlee settlement -- a far more important monument to those sacrificed in war than any lump of rock in Whitehall. And the newspapers crowing over Charlie Gilmour's jail term are cheering them on all the way.

Editor's note: This post was updated by Laurie Penny at 5.05pm on Sunday, 17 July

Laurie Penny is a contributing editor to the New Statesman. She is the author of five books, most recently Unspeakable Things.

Photo: Getty Images
Show Hide image

The case for action against Isil in Syria outweighs the case for inaction

The decision is finely balanced: but I'm voting for intervention, says Dan Jarvis. 

The choice before Parliament is not whether our country enters into a new conflict – it is whether we extend our existing commitment in a conflict that we are already engaged in and cannot hide away from. Those who wish us harm will remain bent on our destruction whatever we decide.

Just over a year ago the House of Commons voted overwhelmingly to support airstrikes against Isil in Iraq. We did so because of the direct threat they posed to our safety and global security. The dangers have since multiplied as Isil have strengthened their foothold in Syria. We’ve seen British holidaymakers murdered on the beaches of Tunisia, bombings in Ankara, Beirut, on a Russian airliner, the horrors in Paris, and terror alerts across the world. Seven Isil-related plots have been foiled in the UK in the past year alone.

If I have learnt anything from my past experience it is that responding to these threats are always the most difficult judgements. There is never a perfect solution. It’s why I have reflected on this issue with care, conscious of what I heard at the National Security Council, and mindful of what is best for my constituents and our country.

That is why I made clear that I would only support extending military action against Isil if it was framed within a wider strategy. Having reflected upon the case for targeting their stronghold in Syria, I am persuaded that the case for action is stronger than the case for inaction.

I understand the voices cautioning against broadening our commitment. The test for them however must be to articulate an alternative strategy for Isil’s defeat. Realistically this cannot be done without targeting their command and control structures in Raqqa.

Answering the call of the United Nations and extending British airstrikes would bring unique capabilities to the struggle against Isil in Syria. The RAF are world leaders in precision targeting. As the French Socialist Defence Minister has said, "The use of these capabilities over Syria would put additional and extreme pressure on the ISIS terror network."

These tactics are working in Iraq. Airstrikes have weakened Isil and a third of their territory has been retaken with no civilian casualties.

Questions have rightly been asked of the Joint Intelligence Committee’s assessment that 75,000 moderate forces are available to help do the same in Syria. It reminds me of the dilemma I faced when commanding Afghan soldiers whose knowledge was invaluable but whose competencies were questionable in other areas. Sometimes you have to work with what you have, but the Prime Minister does need to provide greater clarity about how these troops would function as a coherent fighting force.

Everyone agrees that military action must be accompanied by a diplomatic effort to broker an end to the Syrian civil war. This will take time but a political process is now in place. The Vienna conference agreed a timetable for a political transition within 6 to 18 months. In an ideal world we would wait for this process to conclude, but I don’t believe the nature of the threat we face affords us that luxury.

No-one has argued that the political process would be derailed if Britain joined our allies in acting against Isil in Syria as well as Iraq. I am therefore satisfied that military action could effectively run in parallel to our diplomatic efforts. The government now needs to throw the UK’s full weight behind the negotiations and work with our partners to deliver a lasting peace settlement.

Constructive steps have been set out to address the wider tasks of undercutting Isil’s financial muscle, post-conflict reconstruction and tackling extremism here at home. Now Ministers must deliver on them.

There have been promises to enforce trade sanctions and crack down on the people smugglers that fund Isil’s bloodshed. It is vital that more pressure is put on Gulf States funneling money and arms to jihadist groups. But given much of Isil’s wealth comes from the territory they control, that is what most needs to be undermined.

On reconstruction, the government’s pledge to contribute a further £1bn in humanitarian relief is a significant guarantee. The upcoming Syrian donors conference in London will be crucial in holding the international community to their responsibilities to Syria.

The cancellation of police cuts is also important in our counter-terrorism effort. Further measures will be needed if we are to defeat Isil ideologically and drive radical voices out of our communities. With our security services monitoring hundreds of UK nationals who have returned from Syria however, we need to act to tackle the problem at source.

Overall, the government must strenuously pursue the priorities set out in its motion before Parliament. Isil will only be defeated if Ministers demonstrate the same focus on the wider diplomatic and humanitarian strategy that they have shown in advocating military action. The British public will expect nothing less and it is our job as a responsible Opposition to hold them to that.

Labour has a tradition of standing for the national interest when our country is under threat. When the War Cabinet met in 1939, it was Ministers from our party – Clement Attlee and Arthur Greenwood – that tipped the balance in favour of resisting Nazism. Isil are the fascists of our time. Our struggle against them will be more complex, but the basic judgment it demands of us is the same – the readiness to do what is necessary to keep the British people safe.

I take this decision having voted against airstrikes in Syria without a UN resolution two years ago, mindful of the risks and respectful of those who hold a different view. The mistakes made in Iraq from 2003 cast a long shadow, but we should not be paralysed by the past now that we have UN backing and the conditions of our party conference motion have been met.

When I look to my own conscience, I have to consider how I would feel if the worst happened on our streets and a terrorist atrocity succeeded after backing away from confronting the evil behind it. That is why I will be voting for action on Wednesday. 

Dan Jarvis is the Labour MP for Barnsley Central and a former Major in the Parachute Regiment.