25. The pre-sentence report records that the appellant did not think there was anything wrong with what he had said or done. The report writer stated that the appellant did not have any immediate diagnosable mental illness. He was assessed as being a fantasist who was fully culpable for his behaviour. It appears that the appellant does not show any remorse or understanding of the impact that his views could have on minority groups, many of whom have been victims of racist behaviour. It is suggested in the report that the appellant lives out his fantasies to compensate for his unsatisfactory offline life. It is notable that the appellant's response to previous probation supervision has been poor. He is assessed as a high risk of reconviction. 26. In terms of the factors identified in the authorities as being relevant for the assessment of sentence, we will consider each of those in turn: (i) The nature of the publication and the intent behind it. 27. The material that was published via Twitter was grossly offensive and appalling. What it lacked in sophistication it made up for by reason of the vile terminology that was adopted. The point can perhaps be properly made that the material was not perhaps as considered as that which featured in the cases to which we have made reference, but it was still deeply deplorable. (i) The need to deter others. 28. There is an obvious need for the court to do what it can to inhibit others from publishing material of this kind. (i) The number of people who saw the material. 29. That is not entirely clear. The appellant had a limited number of followers but there were lots of posts and, as Recorder noted, there exists the potential for the material to be further disseminated across social media with ease. (i) The consequence of them having seen it. 30. There is no evidence of there having been any particular consequences arising from the appellant's actions. That was not necessarily the situation in Bonehill-Paine, where some people did attend the event that the appellant sought to promote. 31. What can be said on the appellant's behalf is that he did at least plead guilty although remorse would appear to be wholly absent. He does not have prior convictions of a like nature, as was the situation in respect of the appellant Bonehill-Paine whose offending merited 3 years 4 months. 32. As to the other matters raised on behalf of the appellant, we consider that the Recorder was entitled to assess the charges in the context of the general Twitter traffic that the police investigation revealed and for which the appellant admitted being responsible. Whilst there was delay between interview and the commencement of proceedings, it SMITH BERNAL WORDWAVE