Art heist 'pranksters' sent down for six months

Four men that staged two art gallery thefts and a kidnapping as part of a "prank" for their YouTube channel have been jailed by a judge in the UK. The group, operating under the name Trollstation, staged faked thefts at the National Portrait Gallery and Tate Britain art museum in London this summer, causing panic among …

[Doctor Syntax]

It sounds as if what they really need are brain transplants.

[Steve Foster]

@Doctor Syntax

s/transplants/implants/

[Chemical Bob]

Reaching their brainpans could be nearly impossible as their heads are lodged quite firmly in their asses.

[Anonymous Coward]

Typical retarded millenial, iPhone chav underclass.

If I thought I was being kidnapped I'd be smashing all the knees, jaws, throats, and floating ribs I could reach.

[Dave 126]

I had to scan the article a couple of times too. They didn't pretend to kidnap a random member of the public, the 'hostage' was actually an accomplice:

Later that same day they staged a similar "prank" at Tate Britain - this time appearing to take a female hostage, although she too was part of the team.

And whilst I'd like to think I'd jump to the rescue of someone being kidnapped (if I could without further endangering the victim), you never know how you react in these situations until they happen.

A friend of mine has been 'phoney kidnapped', but that was all above board - it was part of a training course he was sent on before working for an NGO in some troubled countries.

[NotBob]

I didn't see that she was charged though.

In the US, the cops might shoot you for the "robbery," but bystanders might save them the trouble, too. More so if you appear to be taking hostages.

We have "stand your ground" laws and the amusingly named "make my day" law to legally protect citizens in those instances. What can I say, it's a jungle out here...

[Voland's right hand]

In the US

In the UK we have what is known as "citizen's arrest". Similar statutes with different rights exist across Europe.

So while you are not allowed to shoot 'em you are allowed to rough them up and "unintentionally" pull their arms out of their sockets in the process of restraining them until the police shows up. Just make sure it looks unintentional enough.

[Ralph B]

And yet ...

And yet, Derren Brown still walks free.

[VinceH]

Re: And yet ...

There's a huge difference between the way these muppets went about it and the way Derren Brown does it.

With Brown (and any professional TV production) permissions are sought from relevant authorities and any organisations involved, everyone who needs to be notified is, and almost everyone is not only aware but involved. Usually, even the "victim" - while they don't specifically know they're being set up - is someone who has applied to take part in some other, fictional Derren Brown item.

With these muppets, the only people who knew were the twits themselves. Note their logo at the start of the video, which includes the words "full" and "retard".

(Though one thing does stick out as odd: with those gallery pranks, they must have taken in those pictures that they pretended to steal. The pictures look too big to fit in their backpacks, so why did nobody think "wtf?" and question what they were up to on the way in?)

[Anonymous Coward]

Wish we'd had the bankers in front of that judge

Then it might have been:

"The hoaxes fraud may have seemed harmless to them, but they caused genuine distress to a number of members of the public, who should be able to go about their daily business without being put in fear in this way," said Robert Short, of the Crown Prosecution Service, the BBC reports.

"We hope these convictions send a strong message that unlawful activities such as these will not be tolerated in London."

We can only wish.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Wish we'd had the bankers in front of that judge

It's not the bankers, it's the central bankers who are the problem.

The Romans lost most of their empire while printing money.

And stay away from that frankly radioactive Euro shit. It's just there to give Greeks and French a justification for more Mañana.

[Anonymous Coward]

> The Romans lost most of their empire while printing money.

Silly them - after inventing the time machine that gave them access to printing technology ahead of their time they should have devoted themselves to anonymous trolling on the internet.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: > The Romans lost most of their empire while printing money.

The New Deal in Old Rome

Not intelligent enough to get that "printing money" may not necessarily involve paper money?

21 individuals join you in circling the drain of retardation.

But even the bronze coinage that was used before Rome began issuing silver invited the disturbances of funny money that have been with the world in all ages. A tradition of the first century after Christ was that during the first great war of Rome with Carthage three hundred years earlier, the resources of the commonwealth were inadequate to meet its expenditures, and by a reduction of five-sixths in the weight of the bronze coins the public debt was virtually cancelled. This statement is extravagant. But when Hannibal was threatening Rome in the second war with Carthage near the end of the third century B.C., the difficulty of financing the war and especially of meeting the soldier's pay led to a financial crisis. By vote of the Assembly the bronze coin was halved in weight and the silver coin, the denarius, worth something less than the English shilling, was cut fourteen per cent. Gradually, however, the currency was stabilized and for several centuries Rome provided the world with a sound monetary system which enabled trade to develop on a satisfactory basis. Wild inflation did not appear until the anarchy of the third century of our era....

[Anonymous Coward]

"Debasing currency" is probably the term you're seeking

And the Roman Empire crumbled while they whored, snored, slaved, intrigued and yes, indulged in wild public spending. Arranging these presumed causes in order of importance is a task that has kept historians busy for a thousand years and will doubtless see the next thousand out too, but I wouldn't assume it was all down to central bankers.

[Anonymous Coward]

Clearly these guys were idiots who did something foolish but, without knowing if they had previous criminal records or a history of public nuisance, it seems a little imbalanced to me to bang them up, considering some of the turds who get let off countless times for actually harming people and creating victims (not to say that the fright given to witnesses and the lady who fainted are not forms of harm of course)...

[cantankerous swineherd]

an outrageous slur on our British bobbies who are quite capable of blowing people away on the slightest pretext.

[Stig2k]

British bobbies

Finest and most dedicated in the world. Coz if a British police man wants to kill someone, he has to kick him to death

- Al Murray

[Adam 52]

Yes. By way of example other things that have got people 20 weeks recently - hundreds of actual supermarket thefts, burglary and joyriding. And another public order.

Whereas assault, ABH, wife-beating etc. all result in a small fine.

Our judiciary is so messed up.

[PhilipN]

Our judiciary is so messed up.

Exactly.

Many years ago I had a client whose business was put into severe financial difficulties because of the nefarious activities of the chief cashier.

As chance would have it, the company boss happened upon said cashier at Paddington Station and duly remonstrated with him - by way of clenched fist to the stomach followed by a blow to the nose which curiously had come within easy reach of his knee.

In other words a serious assault. He was fined 50 quid.

I bet he felt good about it though.

[lglethal]

Re: Our judiciary is so messed up.

If you had read the article, you will see that they have a LONG history of doing these sorts of stupid illegal pranks.

Is it so hard to read the article in full, before jumping to the comments section to spout bollocks???

[Martin]

"Whereas assault, ABH, wife-beating etc. all result in a small fine."

And shoplifting from a supermarket gets twenty weeks. Yeah, right.

Citation needed. The Daily Mail editorial pages does not count as a citation.

[Cuddles]

"without knowing if they had previous criminal records or a history of public nuisance, it seems a little imbalanced to me to bang them up"

Fortunately we don't need to worry about not knowing these things, since the article clearly states that they do, in fact, have previous criminal records, and causing a public nuisance is the only reason for their group to exist.

[Mark 85]

When they get out of prison Vulture West would advise the gang not to try their style of "pranking" in the USA. Such events are likely to get them shot by police who, unlike British law enforcement, tend to shoot first and ask questions later.

And that would be a problem how? It certainly would send a message to anyone doing these things. A tad harsh perhaps. Ok... a lot harsh.

Actually, it would probably just get them arrested for disturbing the peace or some such unless they decided to stay in character and make a bigger scene. But, yeah.. I can see them getting shot if a cop yells "Stop" and they keep running. Not a good thing.

[Flocke Kroes]

The problem would be collateral damage

There used to be statistics on collateral damage caused by police gun fire. For some reason I cannot find anything modern. According to the old figures, police were better at shooting bystanders than criminals, and far better at hitting innocent dogs than all the humans combined. The most accurate police shooting were from suicides, which can bring the hit ratios over 30% in some states. Likewise, innocent dog shooting figures are inflated by police raiding the address written on a package full of drugs (mayor's home) instead of the place where the drugs would have been delivered if not intercepted by the police.

The world is a little safer with these people locked up at tax payers' expense. The same money spent giving police regular fire arms practice and training for stressful situations would be more cost effective.

[Sureo]

It may be a clever ploy...

... to get inside prison to make another exciting video of what goes on in there.

[BurnT'offering]

Re: It may be a clever ploy...

Yes, I'm sure the guards and inmates will have a few hearty laughs after being pranked. Prison is noted for nurturing a sense of camaraderie. "Gosh, you really got me there. Well, no hard feelings, eh?"

[Anonymous Coward]

Wankers.

HM's representatives I mean, not the other idiots involved in this.

[Anonymous Coward]

"it seems a little imbalanced to me to bang them up"

~ Agree, feels puritanical to lock them up. It sounds more like guerrilla film-making... Was anyone really hurt. did anything get stolen even for a moment?

~ Cleaning public toilets every day for two years would be a better punishment imho.

~ Although with a name like 'Trollstation', maybe I'll second guess myself and say they deserve jail!

~ But what if this is still all part of the their stunt...? With the real end goal to get sent down and do an expose on the UK prison system... [Prison-Troll, the inside scoop...]

[Seajay#]

Re: "it seems a little imbalanced to me to bang them up"

Well one woman did faint. If you do that on a hard surface, there's going to be some damage on the way down. If there had been someone there with a heart condition, they could easily have caused a death. If there had been a stampede through a narrow doorway to escape and someone near the front fell, they could have caused a death. If someone in the 'audience' had been through a robbery before (or even if they hadn't) this could have caused real distress over a long period.

Basically there were lots of easily foreseeable ways in which this could have killed someone. Quite rightly, you are not allowed to be so reckless with the lives and mental health of strangers. Quite rightly, you go to jail for it.

[John Robson]

Re: "it seems a little imbalanced to me to bang them up"

"Basically there were lots of easily foreseeable ways in which this could have killed someone. Quite rightly, you are not allowed to be so reckless with the lives and mental health of strangers."

Unless you do with a lethal weapon - in which case it's "just an accident" or "the sun got in my eyes, so I carried on driving a metal box at 30mph into a space I couldn't see".

People who kill others are frequently let off entirely, or given a pittance of a fine. These people filmed some acting, ok they did it to film the reaction of the public, but as far as I can tell the most dangerous thing they did was drive away...

[Seajay#]

Re: "it seems a little imbalanced to me to bang them up"

It's not the outcome that we punish, it's the intent.

That means that sometimes we punish people who haven't hurt anyone and let people who have killed someone go free. There's nothing wrong with that. Consider the difference between someone who opens up on a crowd with a handgun but misses or a doctor who is operating on someone with the intent of saving them but nicks an artery in a slip of concentration and kills them. Obviously we want to imprison the first (even though he hasn't caused any harm) but not the second.

If the sun gets in to your eyes, what should you do? Immediately emergency stop? Maybe that will kill the person behind you who has also just driven in to glare? Back off the throttle and coast in to a space which just before the glare hit you saw to be empty? It's not an easy decision and it will depend on the exact situation. So long as you're doing the best you can, we should treat you the same way as the doctor.

[John Robson]

Re: "it seems a little imbalanced to me to bang them up"

"If the sun gets in to your eyes, what should you do? Immediately emergency stop? Maybe that will kill the person behind you who has also just driven in to glare? Back off the throttle and coast in to a space which just before the glare hit you saw to be empty? It's not an easy decision and it will depend on the exact situation."

You should "drive at a speed that will allow you to stop well within the distance you can see to be clear" (HC126). I've never known the sun be particularly unpredictable, that's not to say I've never been dazzled by it, but I generally know when it's coming. The sun doesn't dance around the sky, it doesn't jump out.

Also see HC93: "Slow down, and if necessary stop, if you are dazzled by bright sunlight."

You should be slowing down *into* that situation, and then slowing further. The vehicle behind you should be doing the same. You shouldn't be driving onto any piece of tarmac that you haven't actively confirmed is clear of other road users.

http://beyondthekerb.org.uk/2014/01/31/at-the-going-down-of-the-sun/

The difference is that these all resulted in death an no prosecution - because this is tolerated:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-kent-23970047

The vast majority of people simply ignore the requirement to be able to see where you are going - and it's that simple fact that contributes to many lives being taken each year.

[Seajay#]

Re: "it seems a little imbalanced to me to bang them up"

@John

Driving is a weird anomaly. In the surgeon's case, there was no way that we would accept the excuse of "Well he hadn't done any surgery for a while, he's old, he can still see reasonably well but his reactions aren't very quick any more. He hasn't had any formal surgery instruction ever but we've let him keep operating on people because it's what he's always done. A well trained professional surgeon would never have made the mistake he did but given his complete lack of suitability and training, he did as well as you could expect."

We accept that about drivers though. Partly that's inertia, once you've got millions of people driving it's really hard to convince them that they're not very good at it and need to stop and leave it to professionals. Partly it's a sensible risk assessment. Ban amateur drivers and the economic impact would be devastating. That means unemployment and cuts to the health service, police, social services, education, etc. Are we willing to trade away all those wonderful things (which may of course cause other deaths in different areas) for 1800 road deaths per year? No we are not.

[h4rm0ny]

Re: "it seems a little imbalanced to me to bang them up"

I would have thought one of the biggest dangers was to themselves. They were lucky no members of the public decided to intervene violently.

[Anonymous Blowhard]

Re: "it seems a little imbalanced to me to bang them up"

Imagine if their prank had involved a dummy bomb, causing a major sporting event to be evacuated and then postponed with tens of thousands of people inconvenienced and costing millions of pounds in travel and ticket refunds...

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: "it seems a little imbalanced to me to bang them up"

"~ Cleaning public toilets every day for two years would be a better punishment imho."

Most have been closed down to save council's money and inconvenience (pun) gay cruising

[Pompous Git]

For some reason...

I was reminded of this...

A group of hotel employees were gathered near the door of the lift, and the Manager equipped himself with a nightstick - a 30 cm metal rod covered with heavy duty red tape - which was normally kept behind the reception desk. As the lift door opened, a group of men stepped out. Some were wearing masks, some were carrying weapons, ranging from Browning 9 mm automatic pistols to the formidable Heckler and Koch submachine gun. The intruders moved through the lobby into the kitchen, menacing the kitchen staff on the way, and departed in two getaway cars waiting outside a kitchen exit.

One of the cars was stopped by officers of the Victoria Police a short distance from the hotel and its occupants were taken into custody. When other police officers arrived at the hotel, they encountered a bystander, who rather strangely claimed that he could explain everything that had happened, and that he was willing to pay for any damages incurred. Hotel staff may have assumed that they were the victims of an armed robbery; in fact they were unwilling parties to an incident culminating a year of acute embarrassment for the new Hawke Labor government. The episode in question turned out to have been a resoundingly unsuccessful training exercise by officers of the super-secret Australian Secret Intelligence Service (ASIS).

http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/previous%20series/lcj/1-20/wayward/ch8t.html

Only duly authorised employees of the government are allowed to terrorise innocent members of the public.

[BurnT'offering]

Re: For some reason...

Keeping Intelligence Secret - from themselves, presumably

[JustWondering]

Only in England

You don't hear much about pranks like this in the Excited States. I believe they call stuff like this "target practice".

[hplasm]

Re: Only in England

+1 Internet for 'Excited States'

Have a pint.

[JeffyPoooh]

"...pretending to leave a bomb at a..."

...Old Trafford ?

Very recent BBC News: http://www.bbc.com/sport/football/36297390

Stupidity is not confined to the amateurs.

[BebopWeBop]

Re: "...pretending to leave a bomb at a..."

Well the security company involved were obviously not very 'professionall'

[Dan McIntyre]

But if you're Dom Joly and making a TV series it's ok....?

[Anonymous Coward]

To be fair, a man crossing a zebra crossing dressed as a snail, confusing people in a maze by pretending to be a hedge, or sitting on a toilet in an office lift is quite the different kettle of fish from what the accused were up to.

Say what you like about Dom Joly, but most of the pranks (with a few exceptions) in Trigger Happy TV were based on Joly making a fool of himself rather than making anyone else fearful or humiliated, and anyone who appeared in the show had to sign a release presumably, so we can deduce they were all okay with the prank after the fact.

[Jason Bloomberg]

There is a line, and I think scaring people shitless, putting them in real fear, and the consequential wasting of police time definitely takes it over that line.

Some things just aren't funny.

[Anonymous Coward]

The real problem

It wasn't even funny

[Valeyard]

Leaving a bomb at a bus stop

They're very lucky they weren't shot there for that one!

I'd love to see them try that one in northern ireland too. now that would be funny ;)

[Patrick R]

Re: Leaving a bomb at a bus stop

"They're very lucky they weren't shot there for that one!"

Adults behaving like kids. Their YouTube world may fall hard when they go one prank too far. In the real world, you don't even need to be stupid for things to turn tragic in a few seconds. Let's have a thought for Jean-Charles de Menezes.

[jake]

"Pranksters"?

Dumbasses, more like ...

[Ugotta B. Kiddingme]

Re: "Pranksters"?

or "future Darwin Award winners."

[Dabooka]

Right, cretins though they clearly are, how is what they've done more serious than death by dangerous driving? A very quick search produces lots of examples of suspended sentences for killing someone.

I find this odd.

[BurnT'offering]

Re: dangerous driving

Very important to choose the right tool for the job.Hopping onto a bus with a full load of nuns and attacking them with a snooker cue is frowned upon. Plough into the same bus in the Bentley and the judge will award you points for style

[Expectingtheworst]

"Lots of examples of suspended sentences for killing someone."

We used to do that - It is called hanging !

[d3vy]

As was pointed out above you are tried and convicted for the intent not the act.

In the situation that you outlined above the first scenario would be very hard to defend as an accident.

The second not so much.

So if someone is killed by a driver and it can be demonstrated that it was not the drivers intention (Basically it was an accident) then the driver is likely to not be convicted, If it can be demonstrated that it was not the drivers intent, but their driving itself was to blame for the accident then there is a specific charge of causing death by dangerous driving, to be convicted of this you do not need to demonstrate intent but simply that the driver is sufficiently to blame and that their actions were obviously dangerous (ie, going the wrong way down the m6... driving along pavements at 60 etc)

The intent of this group was clearly to cause distress to the public and cause a disruption in order to film it and (I suspect) monetize that film by placing it on you tube.

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

smuggling paintings *into* gallery a better prank

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Cowen_nude_portraits_controversy

(Brian Cowen was the Irish Taoiseach/Prime Minister at the time)

[Dr Patrick J R Harkin]

"tend to shoot first and ask questions later"

If they bother with the questions at all.

[Anonymous Coward]

Good news

For SoFloAntonio. Videos he can steal without the creators being able to do anything.