Thieving little twats

[wobblycogs]

A few years ago I got a very clear insight into the way the media twists the facts of a case. A couple of guys that I worked with played sunday league football with a lad that was involved in a fatal stabbing. It made national headlines for a few days and the lad was portrayed as being evil incarnate and typical of todays youth wandeirng around with knives just looking for trouble.

My collegues though said that he was a fairly quiet lad who they wouldn't have thought would hurt anyone. As the case unfolded it began to become apparant that it was a lot more complex than the media had reported. For a start the guy had only got involved because a group of other lads were pushing his girlfriend about. A murder change became manslaughter with the lad claiming self defence. By the time the police had finished investigating it was fairly clear that the lad hadn't even stabbed the guy although he was the one who had broght and first brandished the knife.

The problem is that the media never reported that their initial articles were massively over blown and as good as fiction. I remember hearing a phone in on a local radio station as I was driving to work on morning. Every caller wanted this lad strung up immediatly but the courts found him not guilty on all counts.

It reenforced for me my belief that the police and courts generally do a good and thorough job and that what gets reported in the papers is little more than sensationalist nonsense. Sure we might have drifted a bit off track lately but you don't correct that with a massive shift in the opposite direction.

 

[jlawrence]

mark, I didn't deliberately pick sentences to backup my arguement. I simply read it and thought that ain't right.

thanks for pointing out where i was wrong.

weird how someone can completely misread/misunderstand what a sentence says whilst being 100% certain it said exactly what they thought it did.

 

[RogerS]

....

weird how someone can completely misread/misunderstand what a sentence says whilst being 100% certain it said exactly what they thought it did.

Psychologists have a term for it - cognitive dissonance. I also suffer from it from time to time but thankfully have given up reading the Telegraph and so it doesn't happen so much these days.

Jakes' steadying influence plays its' part, as well.

 

[TrimTheKing]

mark, I didn't deliberately pick sentences to backup my arguement. I simply read it and thought that ain't right.

I think we have crossed wires here, I didn't say you 'deliberately' picked out words, I meant that genuinely you may have misread it.

The way I read it, with the punctuation, was that life was a maximum but a sentence of a minimum of 7 years, see below, I have taken out the bit between punctuation marks which should be read as a separate meaning:

The sentencing guidelines for this offence indicate that usually when such serious injuries result from such an offence, a very long sentence of imprisonment of seven years or more should be imposed after a trial

thanks for pointing out where i was wrong.

Again, I'm not sure whether this is sarcasm but I wasn't picking for the sake of it, I obviously just didn't articulate it very well.

weird how someone can completely misread/misunderstand what a sentence says whilst being 100% certain it said exactly what they thought it did.

Not sure whether this is a dig or not but I'm not going to dive any further in. I have explained what I meant and that it wasn't meant as a dig, just a comment.

Cheers

Mark

 

[TrimTheKing]

My only comment would be that if only more Judges were as sensible and considered as this one then we wouldn't be having this discussion because we would all have confidence in the justice system

I suspect most are. How often do you actually read their judgments (or in this case, sentencing remarks)?

Not very often admittedly. I think the problem is that the only ones I do get to see are the ones the papers choose to print, and these are invariably the ones that you mention below, the stupid ones.

Reading this changed your mind from what had presumably been formed by press and media coverage. It's very often the case that the media either misunderstand or more likely purposefully distort things to fit their agenda. Working everyone up into a lather about the country going to the dogs earns money (and influences political perceptions).

Egzackerly, and that's why I rarely believe what's written. This case appeared to be very well advertised and all that came out made out that he was wholly wronged and the world was falling apart. the judgement and comments you posted weren't mentioned and obviously changed my understanding and thus opinion on the matter.

 

[jlawrence]

Mark,
I didn't read your reply as a dig at all.

I had completely and utterly misread/misunderstood what I've read - which is why I said it's amazing that someone (ie me) can misread something completely whilst genuinely believing it 100% said something completely different.

I Wasn't being sarcastic - if you hadn't pointed out that I was reading it wrong then I would still have believed it said something that it didn't.

 

[TrimTheKing]

Mark,
I didn't read your reply as a dig at all.

I had completely and utterly misread/misunderstood what I've read - which is why I said it's amazing that someone (ie me) can misread something completely whilst genuinely believing it 100% said something completely different.

I Wasn't being sarcastic - if you hadn't pointed out that I was reading it wrong then I would still have believed it said something that it didn't.

Crossed lines. No worries, it's so hard to tell sometimes whether replies are sarcasm or serious.

I'll stop being so sensitive

 

[devonwoody]

Coming back in again, lock the drug dealers up until they die, means they dont deal again, whats wrong with that? (whose ever children they are)

Our children never got involved with drugs, and I think the reason was I would never have tolerated it with them.

Spare the rod and spoil the child I think is still relevant and thats what is missing these days, and our family is living proof if drugs are anything to go by.

 

[Dibs-h]

Jake - Waled Salem's case was heard prior to the Hussain's - same building, same day - and plenty of folk saw Waled come and go and chat - leading to the obvious "brain injury - yeah right!"

As for the seriousness for it to be accepted - apologies if I chuckle here. CPS psychiatrists\ psychologists - the usual ones on their panel - wouldn't know their @rse from their elbow. How many nutters have been released into the community or on parole - only to go on a killing spree? Brain Damage - i.e. non-physical and non-specific is damn easy to fake - especially if one can be consistent.

I've followed this case closely from the onset and was familiar with the sentencing remarks - many commentators felt that Messrs Hussain should have been found guilty but the sentences suspended.

However, if persons were permitted to take the law into their own hands and inflict their own instant and violent punishment on an apprehended offender rather than letting justice run its course, then the rule of law which are the hallmarks of a civilised society, would collapse. The courts must make it clear that such conduct is criminal and unacceptable.

That really is laughable - the rule of law? Unless someone actually dies, the consequences aren't particularly heavy are they? Or you actually rob a bank - in which you are likely to do more time. The law over time is just becoming rather esoteric - detached from reality and almost self-perpetuating in terms of bleeding the public purse and not much of a public servant\tool.

As a father and husband, I can entirely understand the red mist, rage and what occurred - had Mr Salem been found dead in Mr Hussain's house, the matter would have been put to bed quickly. As someone said in their post about the US i.e. get them back in the house 1st and then shoot them.

Not having a dig at you Jake - I just find it rather surreal, yes 2 wrongs don't make a right, but a system that allows a hardened criminal to have 50 previous? That's not a system - that's a piss take and a money generating machine.

 

[Jake]

We'll have to agree to disagree, then Dibs. I don't want to live in a country which tolerates lynch mobs, and I'm glad I don't. Tough cases can make bad law, but here I think the bad law would have been to endorse the group beating, even if the temptation is always there to say that in the circumstances it should have been a free for all.

Out of interest, would you have drawn the line anywhere? What if they had tied him up and tortured him horribly to death over the course of a few days?

 

[Dibs-h]

We'll have to agree to disagree, then Dibs. I don't want to live in a country which tolerates lynch mobs, and I'm glad I don't. Tough cases can make bad law, but here I think the bad law would have been to endorse the group beating, even if the temptation is always there to say that in the circumstances it should have been a free for all.

Out of interest, would you have drawn the line anywhere? What if they had tied him up and tortured him horribly to death over the course of a few days?

Group beatings\Lynch mobs should not be tolerated - on that I don't disagree. Having Messrs Hussain found not guilty would not have been acceptable from a case law perspective. They had to be found guilty.

What I was unhappy with was that Judges do have latitude and given the circumstances and extreme provocation (not high degree) the sentence could have been more lenient - if not suspended. What was happening was a home owner was being made an example of - when's the last time a burglar was made an example of - or a mugger?

 

[Jake]

The answer to that is all the time. Here, they got way less than the minimum recommended sentence even at first instance - that isn't them being made an extraordinary example of - that would imply them being the maximum term, i.e. life.

 

[Bluekingfisher]

We'll have to agree to disagree, then Dibs. I don't want to live in a country which tolerates lynch mobs, and I'm glad I don't. Tough cases can make bad law, but here I think the bad law would have been to endorse the group beating, even if the temptation is always there to say that in the circumstances it should have been a free for all.

Out of interest, would you have drawn the line anywhere? What if they had tied him up and tortured him horribly to death over the course of a few days?

I wouldn't want to live in a country either where lynch mobs have free reign, equally so I don't want to live in a country where people are fearful of protecting their property and family lest they end up in the clink.

The bottom line is if you can justify your actions at the time of the incident. i.e. I was asleep in bed. awoken by what I believed to be intruders in my house. I was scared out of my wits for the safety of my family and myself. They had had the advantage because their actions were premeditated and I was aroused from slumber. I was naked and vulnerable. Kind of paints a picture in any reasonable jurys' mind your own state of mind during the episode. So if you can justify the ends you went to defend yourself you are covered. Chasing him down the street (as much as we would all want to) and clubbing him to death with his own, recently torn off arm would be difficult to justify because he is no longer a threat. In fact you have now become the threat to him, he is now fearful of a good kicking, that's how a smart arsed brief would put it across. If he on the other hand was in the kitchen and you engaged in a struggle and you feared for your life and stabbed him with the potato peeler which was lying on the draining board any one would think that reasonable.

Unfortunately the sentencing lets them (burglars) believe that such a crime is trivial, so they continue in the cycle.

I have been in the same court on the same day dealing with two different cases. One, a serial burglar, on conviction, having pleaded not guilty, was sentenced to reside at a bail hostel and comply with certain bail conditions...whoop-e-doo!

The afternoon case was a wealthy businessman in a large expensive BMW motor car pleading not guilty to driving through a red traffic light. On conviction he received a £500 fine and 6 penalty points on his licence.

What does that tell us? if you can bare the stigma, become a burglar!!!!

 

[Dibs-h]

The answer to that is all the time. Here, they got way less than the minimum recommended sentence even at first instance - that isn't them being made an extraordinary example of - that would imply them being the maximum term, i.e. life.

I suppose that's where we actually disagree.

 

[RogerS]

........
I have been in the same court on the same day dealing with two different cases. One, a serial burglar, on conviction, having pleaded not guilty, was sentenced to reside at a bail hostel and comply with certain bail conditions...whoop-e-doo!

The afternoon case was a wealthy businessman in a large expensive BMW motor car pleading not guilty to driving through a red traffic light. On conviction he received a £500 fine and 6 penalty points on his licence.

What does that tell us? if you can bare the stigma, become a burglar!!!!

And that is exactly why any sane person can only come to the conclusion that our sentencing/judicial system is seriously flawed. Personally I'd take those on the Sentencing Guidelines Panel and stick them on a sink estate for a year. Then let them think a bit harder about more appropriate sentencing instead of sitting on their fat backsides, pontificating over a latte and reading the Guardian, tut-tutting with their smug holier-than-thou attitude.

 

[Jake]

What were the bail conditions, and what was the offence?

£500 fine for an offence which is reckless, stupid and potentially life endangering doesn't seem much of a sentence for a rich businessman.

I know I'd rather pay £500 than be confined to a bail hostel for ?how long? under ?what conditions?

 

[Bluekingfisher]

Jake,

This was about 20 years ago, so forgive me if my memory of the exact details are vague. It stuck in my mind because the court was quite prepared to heap a heavy punishment on a man purely because he had the funds to pay for it, albeit a potential serious matter. However if he had have gone through the light and killed someone then he would have been charged with death by reckless driving, perhaps an over zealous cop may have burdened with the additional offence of contravening a red ATS Lol not that it would have made much of a difference to a sentence.

The burglars punishment as I remember was to reside at a bail hostel and report to a police station once a day for a period of time. No doubt to let him reflect on his actions of breaking into someones home. I have no recollection of him after that date because I moved divisions shortly after. Suffice to say he was a persistent offender and I would put my house on the fact that that wouldn't have been the last time he was up in front of a court

 

[Bluekingfisher]

I should have said that 'reside' is purely that, there are few restrictions except that they have to be back indoors at night, usually by 10pm. Other than that they can come and go as they please.

Oh! by the way, the Labour government are experimenting with bringing bail hostels into the community. This could mean that any vacant buildings/house could be bought up to house these poor unfortunates while awaiting a court hearing. The bad news is that there is no requirement to inform that community that the building will be used or has been bought for the purpose. I wonder why the government made that rule up? you don't suppose they feel there might be a few objections do you?

 

[devonwoody]

I wouldnt class them as poor unfortunates, I have another expression for them.

 

[Bluekingfisher]

I wouldnt class them as poor unfortunates, I have another expression for them.

You and me both, but I am a man who has now gone through enough PC awareness training to understand the needs and values of others - hallelujah brothers, I have seen the future!!!!!


I should have jumped on that PC bandwagon when it came around, I could have made a fortune bleating on about the obvious