i know someone who threw domestos over the pope-he got done for bleach of the priest

and after that crap old joke-yep, it is horrible what happened to that woman

The sort of yoof who finks they deserve 'respeck', whilst giving no 'respeck' to the rest of society!

Dreadful

Gosh I hope she is ok... No wonder people just ignore the noisy teenagers these days, no one wants trouble....

quote:

Originally posted by Blizzie:
The sort of yoof who finks they deserve 'respeck', whilst giving no 'respeck' to the rest of society!

That is so awful I hope he gets the punishment he deserves.

Throw away the key time!!

quote:

Originally posted by Blizzie:
The sort of yoof who finks they deserve 'respeck', whilst giving no 'respeck' to the rest of society!

And sometimes it's an absolute JOY to behold Karma paying a respectful little visit on oiks like that. Trust me on that

quote:

Originally posted by peggytyson:
Throw away the key time!!

that never happens though does it?

quote:

Originally posted by Marguerita:
That is so awful I hope he gets the punishment he deserves.

Sometimes they do, Marg........

Thats disgusting .

quote:

Originally posted by Marguerita:
That is so awful I hope he gets the punishment he deserves.

problem is Marguerita, we know he won't get what he deserves. He and his cohorts deliberately went to get the bleach, follow her family and then attack her which shows a certain amount of premediation but you can bet your life he'll claim it was spur of the moment. With the farcial judicial sentences given out these days I bet he does no more than a couple of months if anything at all, as he'll be on remand for a while and the sentence won't be more than a couple of years

Meanwhile, she looks as if she will lose her eyesight

quote:

Originally posted by Pengy:

quote:

Originally posted by Marguerita:
That is so awful I hope he gets the punishment he deserves.

problem is Marguerita, we know he won't get what he deserves. He and his cohorts deliberately went to get the bleach, follow her family and then attack her which shows a certain amount of premediation but you can bet your life he'll claim it was spur of the moment. With the farcial judicial sentences given out these days I bet he does no more than a couple of months if anything at all, as he'll be on remand for a while and the sentence won't be more than a couple of years

Meanwhile, she looks as if she will lose her eyesight

OMG .... The judiciary system is failing because people think they can get away with anything these days....

I blame the parents. I'd blame the teachers too but there are too many on here for me to get away with it.

I think the maximum sentence is probably 5 years. I suppose his age will count in his favour if found guilty.

Potentially 50% off for parole. Doesn't really sound very much given the offence.

As long as it didnt go in her eyes I dont suppose it did that much damage - maybe ruined a nice top or something. I know thats not the point like but still...

That's absouloutly shocking, Surly the judge would see it as a premeditated attack and sentence him accordingly, It's true though that some folk think they can do whatever they like and get away with it and some do get away with it.

I wonder how different the country would be if cretins like these were castrated instead of imprisoned.
Firstly, it certainly would make them think before acting. Secondly, he would be unable to father anymore dregs of society, a win win situation.
But alas it is against their human rights, bugger everybody elses, but at least the criminals have theirs.

I tell you, the 14-16 year old teens are out of control, and yes Daniel I do put some blame on the parents. It's holiday time, they don't want them hanging around the house, so bung them a tenner and off they go.

My story is a bit different, but I found out my 14 year old son and 15 year old daughter had been smoking and drinking and generally loitering with intent in town, after telling us they were going to friend's houses. We believed them and even gave them money to buy alchohol. They are grounded for 2 weeks, no allowance any more, they need money they do chores, no sleeping over friend's houses, no internet for the foreseeable future and certainly no hanging around town EVER. Yes it has been hard, but worth every whinging minute.

quote:

Originally posted by Daniel J*:
I blame the parents. I'd blame the teachers too but there are too many on here for me to get away with it.

I agree with u a bit about it being the parents fault as that's true in some case's but not all.

quote:

Originally posted by Daniel J*:
I blame the parents. I'd blame the teachers too but there are too many on here for me to get away with it.

Everyone is to blame....Kids cant be disciplined because of "rights"... Society is a mess right now...

i read that a few days ago, sick isn't it.

you feel safer when you are out with your hubby and/or kids, thinking noone can be that sick to attack you unless you on your own.....obviously there are people that sick

quote:

Originally posted by charmer:
i know someone who threw domestos over the pope-he got done for bleach of the priest

quote:

Originally posted by MoFo:
As long as it didnt go in her eyes I dont suppose it did that much damage - maybe ruined a nice top or something. I know thats not the point like but still...

it did though hun, severly damamged eyes, when i read article a few days ago they didn't know to what extent. she may never see again.
she also had badly burnt skin

quote:

Originally posted by Darthhoob:

quote:

Originally posted by MoFo:
As long as it didnt go in her eyes I dont suppose it did that much damage - maybe ruined a nice top or something. I know thats not the point like but still...

it did though hun, severly damamged eyes, when i read article a few days ago they didn't know to what extent. she may never see again.
she also had badly burnt skin

Berlimey....just normal household bleach???

quote:

Originally posted by MoFo:

quote:

Originally posted by Darthhoob:

quote:

Originally posted by MoFo:
As long as it didnt go in her eyes I dont suppose it did that much damage - maybe ruined a nice top or something. I know thats not the point like but still...

it did though hun, severly damamged eyes, when i read article a few days ago they didn't know to what extent. she may never see again.
she also had badly burnt skin

Berlimey....just normal household bleach???

no idea, it didn't go into brand name lol.

but yes bleach can be that bad. i remember using it in science class and someone burnt their hand with the stuff...probably thinking it wouldn't hurt

quote:

Originally posted by luxor:
But alas it is against their human rights, bugger everybody elses, but at least the criminals have theirs.

What nonsense.

The fact that the police have arrested the lad and he's been charged shows that the victim's human rights have been recognised.

This country needs a population-wide education drive to teach people what rights actually mean and how they're used.

It makes my blood boil when I read of stories like this but it also makes my blood boil when I read some of the responses.

quote:

Originally posted by Daniel J*:
I blame the parents. I'd blame the teachers too but there are too many on here for me to get away with it.

Me too.

I also blame every adult who looks the other way, when things are happening.

There is a reason these kids think that they can get away with their behaviour!

quote:

Originally posted by Blizzie:
I also blame every adult who looks the other way, when things are happening.

They do that to avoid getting bleach in their eyes.

quote:

Originally posted by Daniel J*:

quote:

Originally posted by luxor:
But alas it is against their human rights, bugger everybody elses, but at least the criminals have theirs.

What nonsense.

The fact that the police have arrested the lad and he's been charged shows that the victim's human rights have been recognised.

This country needs a population-wide education drive to teach people what rights actually mean and how they're used.

It makes my blood boil when I read of stories like this but it also makes my blood boil when I read some of the responses.

We will see if the alleged criminal gets what he deserves for this crime. What price our judicial system puts on disfigurement.
The rights of a convicted criminal against those of society to live without fear.
I know which one I am backing.

quote:

Originally posted by luxor:

quote:

Originally posted by Daniel J*:
It makes my blood boil when I read of stories like this but it also makes my blood boil when I read some of the responses.

We will see if the alleged criminal gets what he deserves for this crime. What price our judicial system puts on disfigurement.
The rights of a convicted criminal against those of society to live without fear.
I know which one I am backing.

You can look up what the tariff is for this sort of crime as the charge is listed in the link. Whether the tariff is appropriate or whether mitigating circumstances ought to be considered is a very different argument to the human rights of the convicted.

My god, you're saying our society should cut body parts from criminals and determine who has the right to reproduce. What sort of sicko says stuff like that? Wouldn't you be better migrating to Saudi Arabia or Afghanistan where people of a similar mindset live?

*shudder*

quote:

Originally posted by Daniel J*:

quote:

Originally posted by luxor:

quote:

Originally posted by Daniel J*:
It makes my blood boil when I read of stories like this but it also makes my blood boil when I read some of the responses.

We will see if the alleged criminal gets what he deserves for this crime. What price our judicial system puts on disfigurement.
The rights of a convicted criminal against those of society to live without fear.
I know which one I am backing.

You can look up what the tariff is for this sort of crime as the charge is listed in the link. Whether the tariff is appropriate or whether mitigating circumstances ought to be considered is a very different argument to the human rights of the convicted.

My god, you're saying our society should cut body parts from criminals and determine who has the right to reproduce. What sort of sicko says stuff like that? Wouldn't you be better migrating to Saudi Arabia or Afghanistan where people of a similar mindset live?

*shudder*

I never said that is what I wanted. I only wondered if that sort of punishment would make people think more about their actions.
But I see that even if you are percieved not to think as you, then you should be banished to a foreign land.
Now that is a way of thinking that should be outlawed.

quote:

Originally posted by Daniel J*:
I think the maximum sentence is probably 5 years. I suppose his age will count in his favour if found guilty.

Potentially 50% off for parole. Doesn't really sound very much given the offence.

you forgot a further 1/3 if he pleads guilty and the additional 2 weeks off brought in for overcrowding.

however, it depends how he is charged, the more common abh and gbh will get a short sentence so more ofter now they go for a section 18 or 20 which is "wounding" for section 20 (max 5 years) or "wounding with intent" (which this was as he took the bleach to the offence) which is section 18 and carries upto life, however average sentence for section 20 is 30 months and for section 18 its only 45 months (less all the time mentioned above).

those of course will be much lower if the person is under 21 and once probation has provided a pre sentence report its likely that unless the offender has a long history of violent offences he could get nothing more than a tag and extended probation with maybe a community non-punishment for a few hours.


since the 16 year old who did it has been remanded in custody he will also get "time served" so the time he's on remand will be deducted from his sentence too.

quote:

Originally posted by Big Brothers Big Scam:
you forgot a further 1/3 if he pleads guilty and the additional 2 weeks off brought in for overcrowding.

As I understand it, merely pleading guilty because the case is an open and shut one does not necessarily reduce the sentence.

quote:

Originally posted by Daniel J*:

quote:

Originally posted by Big Brothers Big Scam:
you forgot a further 1/3 if he pleads guilty and the additional 2 weeks off brought in for overcrowding.

As I understand it, merely pleading guilty because the case is an open and shut one does not necessarily reduce the sentence.

it does daniel because a guilty plea means the courts dont have to hear the case thus reducing costs, supposedly the full 1/3 is only for an early guilty plea but often its given even if the plea is only changed when the defendant gets to court.

quote:

Originally posted by luxor:
I never said that is what I wanted. I only wondered if that sort of punishment would make people think more about their actions.
But I see that even if you are percieved not to think as you, then you should be banished to a foreign land.
Now that is a way of thinking that should be outlawed.

Your "alas" gives you away.

However, I certainly haven't advocated banishing people with different views or anything like it. The type of society you muse over exists already with the sort of sentences where body parts are removed. As you have more faith in a foreign judicial system that "stinks" than ours, and as you bemoan the very basis of human rights, I've suggested you might be better off migrating. Perhaps you'll be happier.

Human rights became properly codified immediately after the second world war and directly because of the systematic atrocities committed by some humans on others. The regime advocating those atrocities also favoured eugenics so that the 'undesirables' didn't "father anymore dregs of society" too. I won't banish people holding those or similar views but I'll argue against them at every opportunity. Their views will become policy in this country only over my dead body.

quote:

Originally posted by Big Brothers Big Scam:
it does daniel because a guilty plea means the courts dont have to hear the case thus reducing costs, supposedly the full 1/3 is only for an early guilty plea but often its given even if the plea is only changed when the defendant gets to court.

The sentencing guidelines say otherwise:

Sentencing guidelines

It says:

"The maximum reduction will be given only where the offender indicated willingness
to admit guilt at the first reasonable opportunity. When this occurs will vary from
case to case."

Surprisingly to me, it says that being caught red-handed and admitting guilt still gets the sliding scale. I've read it differently in other places. But I suppose these are the guidelines.

quote:

Originally posted by Daniel J*:

quote:

Originally posted by Big Brothers Big Scam:
it does daniel because a guilty plea means the courts dont have to hear the case thus reducing costs, supposedly the full 1/3 is only for an early guilty plea but often its given even if the plea is only changed when the defendant gets to court.

The sentencing guidelines say otherwise:

Sentencing guidelines

It says:

"The maximum reduction will be given only where the offender indicated willingness
to admit guilt at the first reasonable opportunity. When this occurs will vary from
case to case."

Surprisingly to me, it says that being caught red-handed and admitting guilt still gets the sliding scale. I've read it differently in other places. But I suppose these are the guidelines.

i can only speak from experience, not me, but someone i know (and i'll leave that part at that).

in front of many witnesses he stabbed someone with a screwdriver puncturing their lung, after making it known he intended to do it, arrested at the scene and placed on remand he was charged with section 18 and plead not guilty, after a few remand hearings he eventualy went to trial, on the day of the trial he changed his plea to guilty on a charge of section 20, two weeks later he was back in court where he was given a 30 month sentence, they gave him 80 days off that for time on remand and he's been told hes due for release next summer so in fact hes doing 12 months as a convicted prisoner out of the 30 he was given.

i should point out that the offence was committed whilst he was out on licence and on bail (twice) for two other serious offences. the licence was for a variety of offences, the 2 bails were for assault, assaulting a police officer (which also breached an asbo) and breach of the peace in the first case and aggravated vehicle taking (2), possession of an offensive weapon (knife), failing to stop, resisting arrest, driving whilst banned, driving without valid tax, licence, insurance or mot and as the result of a drugs and alcohol test driving whilst under the influence of 2 class a drugs and dui.

oh, hes 24 and has a history of anti social and violent offences, in and out of prison since the age of 20 rarely out more than a fortnight before a new arrest and bail and never returned for breaching his conditions of release.

as you can see, every inch the violent little thug the courts are supposed to protect society from so is 12 months really enough?