assessed as being at a high risk of reconviction and his response to previous attempts to help him by way of supervision had been poor. 12. The Recorder commented that the appellant's claim not to be a racist could not be reconciled with the contents of the tweets and the analysis undertaken by the Probation Service. The Recorder noted the appellant's claims to have worked and socialised with Muslims throughout his life. The appellant also stated he identified as being Jewish and reported that he had got carried away with what he perceived as being false media. The Recorder commented that none of that was in any way an explanation or excuse for his actions. 13. The Recorder observed that the appellant had pleaded guilty on the very first opportunity and was entitled to the maximum credit. 14. The Recorder referred to the fact that there were no guidelines for the offences but said that his attention had been drawn to a number of authorities in relation to this type of offending. The Recorder highlighted the need for deterrence and also the number of people who had seen the material. The Recorder said that hundreds of Twitter users had received the tweets automatically but possibly many more. The Recorder commented that the true number who may have seen the tweets could run into the thousands if not tens of thousands because of the ease of dissemination. 15. The Recorder stated that it was clear that the appellant was engaged in a campaign of hatred against the black, Muslim and Jewish communities; that he was quite deliberately trying to stir up religious and racial hatred. The Recorder said it was no coincidence that the tweets were posted in the run-up to the European Union Referendum in June 2016. 16. The Recorder stated the only significant mitigation was the appellant's pleas of guilty. The Recorder also said that he was taking account of totality. The Recorder identified that after a trial the sentence would have been 6 years' imprisonment but after reduction for the guilty pleas the sentence would be 4 years' imprisonment concurrent on each of the 13 charges. 17. The grounds of appeal settled by counsel appointed after sentence argue that a term of four years should be assessed as being manifestly excessive because: (i) the circumstances of the offences did not merit a starting point of 6 years after trial; (ii) the appellant published the tweets over a period of 6 days. The charges were apparently treated as specimen counts; (iii) there was a significant delay before sentence; (iv) the sentence did not adequately take his personal mitigation into account; (v) cases drawn to the Recorder's attention involved identical offences and indicated a lower level of sentence as being appropriate; SMITH BERNAL WORDWAVE