Attacker of 97 yr old veteran escapes jail

#61
The trouble is there are so many stories in the media of people standing up for themselves and either A) being slotted by some scumbag or B) being nicked by the plod for standing up to the scumbag. If people aren't going to be supported, or aren't going to be SEEN to be supported (for those who will jump in and say "ah but most police aren't actually like that") then they won't do anything about it. It's a vicious circle, people won't do anything about it so the scrotes will behave worse, meaning less people will have the bottle to stand up to them, then the scrotes will behave worse again etc etc.
 
#62
Awol said:
To be fair to the other passengers, they didn't have time to intervene, it was a single punch that nobody could have expected.
I have been in a similar situation, off duty switched off and going home, a couple of times. By the time you have realised something is happening, swithched on and come up with a plan (in all of a second or so) matey has gone and you are left trying to decide to chase or stay with the casualty.

BTW I was working in Croydon when this happened and I have rarely seen such determination to "go and find the b&stard"

Trotsky
 
#63
Perturbed said:
That was pretty much my initial reaction and especially after seeing a big fat grin on the scrote's face when leaving court. On further reflection/reading though it does look like the offender has known mental problems.
Yeah, mental enough to realise he'd got away with it. What was the beak on? In the public interest NOT to lock up some moron who goes around twatting 95 year olds? Yet another day goes by that leaves me confused and very fcuking angry. I tell you now, if this had been my ol' feller blinded by this cnut, then I'd hunted him down and dispatched him with great prejudice to save him doing anything like it again... and he will.
 
#64
Buckfelize, at the risk of being pedantic the case was held in Crown court, before a supposedly learned judge. Makes it worse really.
 
#65
BuckFelize said:
Perturbed said:
That was pretty much my initial reaction and especially after seeing a big fat grin on the scrote's face when leaving court. On further reflection/reading though it does look like the offender has known mental problems.
Yeah, mental enough to realise he'd got away with it. What was the beak on? In the public interest NOT to lock up some moron who goes around **** 95 year olds? Yet another day goes by that leaves me confused and very fcuking angry. I tell you now, if this had been my ol' feller blinded by this cnut, then I'd hunted him down and dispatched him with great prejudice to save him doing anything like it again... and he will.
You do know that I would like to see him locked away? I also think that should have been done sooner. I also think he should never again be unleashed upon society.

I am explaining as your post could be interpreted as though you claim that I think the guy should just be left alone. I don't.

Pretty sure the guy knew enough to realise he had "got away with it" but maybe a mentaly ill person could still be aware enough to spot that. Don't know for certain as I am no expert on mental problems.

I was certainly anoyed with his big great grin on leaving court. Obviously he had no remorse at a 90+ year old person losing sight in 1 eye because of his actions.

To put it as plain as I can. The perperator should be locked away from society for the rest of his life. Preferably in a mental health secure hospital. Failing that, in a prison. Inocent members of society should be protected first and this persons rghts be considered as secondary.

Is that plain/clear enough?
 
#66
From what I remember of my studies (two years psychopathology including schizophrenia) it's a disorder that comes on and abates, but if they continue to take their dopamine supplements they should stay stable. Personally I believe the person should be sectioned under the mental health act because if they are having relapses either they aren't taking medication, or it isn't working. So are unable to control their actions a need full time care and supervision.

The fact he's walking the streets now is plain sickening and is indeed showing how little politicians and lawmakers know about the real world. If ignorance of the law is no defence, although can be mitigating, the same should be said for mental health, while it may explain the action it should not be considered a way of reducing the sentence. The mental health laws in general need a review, and this case needs retrying with a judge who has some knowledge of the disease and how it cannot be cured.
 
#67
Perturbed said:
BuckFelize said:
Perturbed said:
That was pretty much my initial reaction and especially after seeing a big fat grin on the scrote's face when leaving court. On further reflection/reading though it does look like the offender has known mental problems.
Yeah, mental enough to realise he'd got away with it. What was the beak on? In the public interest NOT to lock up some moron who goes around **** 95 year olds? Yet another day goes by that leaves me confused and very fcuking angry. I tell you now, if this had been my ol' feller blinded by this cnut, then I'd hunted him down and dispatched him with great prejudice to save him doing anything like it again... and he will.
You do know that I would like to see him locked away? I also think that should have been done sooner. I also think he should never again be unleashed upon society.

I am explaining as your post could be interpreted as though you claim that I think the guy should just be left alone. I don't.

Pretty sure the guy knew enough to realise he had "got away with it" but maybe a mentaly ill person could still be aware enough to spot that. Don't know for certain as I am no expert on mental problems.

I was certainly annoyed with his big great grin on leaving court. Obviously he had no remorse at a 90+ year old person losing sight in 1 eye because of his actions.

To put it as plain as I can. The perpetrator should be locked away from society for the rest of his life. Preferably in a mental health secure hospital. Failing that, in a prison. Innocent members of society should be protected first and this persons rights be considered as secondary.

Is that plain/clear enough?
Crystal. I hadn't actually misinterpreted you post in the first place, so apologies if you'd misinterpreted mine as a misinterpretation of yours. As for mental problems? Just what exactly constitutes a mental problem? I'm actually becoming more mentally problematic by the day as I read and hear these news items. It's enough to drive one to dri... erm... I'm actually already at that stage. The real mental problems lie with the idiots making mong judicial decisions.
 
#68
Ex_ex said:
bigusdogus said:
thing that bothers me here, it happened on a CROWDED tram? WTF was everone doing? standing by and letting a pensioner get punched, the scumbag wasn't detained at the scene? why not?
Plod are to blame for that. People look the other way nowadays because of stories like this:

Swabbed for DNA and held EIGHT hours, the man who tackled a litter lout
Don't you think it's more down to the fact that people generally don't give a Fcuk anymore?
 
#69
Awol said:
To be fair to the other passengers, they didn't have time to intervene, it was a single punch that nobody could have expected.

I know why so many thugs are getting away with things like this.... dopey old judges can't comprehend why anyone would do something like this, therefore the perpetrators must be ill in some way.

In their fluffy liberal world, the fact that some people are simply evil seems to escape them.
Be careful not to criticise the liberal view of the world, or you will discover just what a contradiction in terms the word liberal is.

You can blind a pensioner and they'll make numerous psychobabble excuses for you, speak out against it and you become the villain in the piece.

It is this warped view of the world that has made society the sewer it now is.

After all it's far easier to make excuses for the perpetrators, bad upbringing, daddy didn't love them enough, an uncaring society etc rather than admit the fact that criminals, especially violent ones need to be punished. If he is mentally ill then he is clearly dangerous and therefore should be detained until he is no longer a danger.

The usual knee jerk reaction by the liberals doesn't alter the fact that they too have innocent blood on their hands thanks to their naive stupidity when it comes to criminal justice.
 
#70
BuckFelize said:
Crystal. I hadn't actually misinterpreted you post in the first place, so apologies if you'd misinterpreted mine as a misinterpretation of yours. As for mental problems? Just what exactly constitutes a mental problem? I'm actually becoming more mentally problematic by the day as I read and hear these news items. It's enough to drive one to dri... erm... I'm actually already at that stage. The real mental problems lie with the idiots making mong judicial decisions.
I was just after clarification really as I could have read it in more than 1 way. So cheers for that reply.

I have no idea how mental problems are assesed but do believe that they exist. It does seem reasonable that someone with a mental ilmpairment is not held to the same accountability criteria as the majority of society. That does not mean that I think the general poulation should not be protected though.

As for the judge in this particular case. Well, I completely agree with you. That thinking is damnable. The bloke is very clearly a danger to the general public and protecting them should be the top priority.

On the news as I type is a story that 2 prisons are entirely populated by foreign nationals and in total we have 11,000 foreigners in our prisons. Meanwhile the prisons are so full that shed-loads of offenders are being releasedeatly including 1,000 violent criminals. Bloody marvelous.

Also just on the news was a story about young drivers in Plymouth. Large numbers of "boy racers" charging through the town in their cars throughout the night. They make so much noise that residents are unable to sleep and it goes on all night. This is now the biggest drain on police resources there. Why should this be? For me; 1st offence a warning, 2nd you have your car taken and sold at auction. Another thought was how can they be able to do this, do they not have to get up for work. If not, how can they afford a car?

Then look at the story of that guy at the rugby World cup. He was at the final, behaved like a dick and yet is on benefits. Seems as though he is on sick payments for a bad back and depression. He must be swinging the lead. How could anyone too sick to work be able to do what he did?

All in all I think our entire way of life is under atack from many sides. I can't see current trends as sustainable and if something isn't done to reverse them we could face societal collapse in a very unpleasant way.
 
#71
linky darwins


for the British judge who doesn't know online from offline. SlashDot reported that during a trial of three men accused of inciting terrorism via the internet, the judge "admitted he was struggling to cope with basic terms." The prosecutor set aside his line of questioning to explain 'Web site' and 'forum' to the 59-year-old judge, who acknowledged, "I haven't quite grasped the concepts."
Now, okay he's a Judge and therefore the law is his forte, but, surely a clue about whats happened in the world over the last ten years would be beneficial. Should judges have to go on courses and spend time in the 'real'world , would it benefit in any way to make them more aware of the world and peoples attitudes out side of their private clubs .
 
#72
Forget the rights and wrongs of the situation; it all comes down to money.

You can't lock him up in prison because a) the jails are overflowing and b) prison officers are, I imagine, neither trained nor resourced for dealing with psychotics.

You can't put him in a secure mental hospital because all areas of mental health are under-resourced and pressure on places is immense. Thus far, it was one punch and hence seen as relatively minor.

If you really want to see "Care in the Community" at work, go to Hastings. When CC was introduced, London emptied itself of problem cases and sent them to Hastings because property was cheap due to lack of employment. I visited a house with a known psychotic (with criminal convictions and cases pending) on one floor and a mentally impaired alcoholic epileptic below. The epileptic was in no condition to look after herself and was black and blue. They were in the community, but I saw very little sign of care. Waiting lists for warden-assisted accommodation, where an eye could be kept on them, run into years.

One of my friends was schizophrenic. Lovely girl when she was well. Every few months she'd be taken (sometimes by the police) to the local psychiatric ward and sectioned. After 3 days in they still wouldn't have provided her with washkit and toothbrush and I'd get a phone call. They'd then run through their armoury of drugs trying each in turn and when she had smiled blandly at them for a couple of weeks they sent her out again. And she'd forget to take the drugs and the cycle would start again.

Don't think of it as "them" and "us". 1 in 4 people develops a mental health problem at some time in their life - if you're the "1" this is the service you'll be provided with.

It needs a major rethink.
 
#73
I have just received a reply from the AG's office. have to admit to being a tad disappointed.

Dear Halomonkey,

Thank you for your e-mail to this office dated 23 October 2007 requesting the Attorney General to refer the recent sentence given to Mr. Stephen Gordon.

As you may know, the Attorney General has the power, under section 35 and 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, to refer to the Court of Appeal a sentence passed in a Crown Court which appears to him to be an unduly lenient sentence (ULS). The ULS scheme only applies to certain serious offences. If the sentence was for an offence which falls within the scheme, the Attorney General’s power to refer is subject to a strict 28 day time limit from the date that the sentence was passed.

In this case, Mr. Gordon was convicted under the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 of section 20 Grievous Bodily Harm (GBH). This offence is not one which is within the scheme, and so the Attorney General is unable to take any action on this case.

I’d like to give you a little more information about the ULS scheme generally. If an offence falls within the scheme, and we are asked to consider it within the 28 day time limit, there are still some important tests that a case must pass before the Attorney General can refer a sentence to the Court of Appeal. I am enclosing some further detail about the scheme which we have published on our website at www.attorneygeneral.gsi.gov.uk which I hope will be helpful.

Decisions on whether or not to refer cases are taken only after very careful consideration of the facts and the circumstances of the case and the relevant sentencing law and guidelines.

I realise that my reply, by its very nature will be disappointing. However, I hope that at least my explanation has been of some use.

Yours sincerely,

Shariq Ali

I have written back to them and asked if there is another route that can be taken to have this sentence reviewed. I will post any reply that I receive
 
#74
Firehorse said:
Forget the rights and wrongs of the situation; it all comes down to money.

You can't lock him up in prison because a) the jails are overflowing and b) prison officers are, I imagine, neither trained nor resourced for dealing with psychotics.

You can't put him in a secure mental hospital because all areas of mental health are under-resourced and pressure on places is immense. Thus far, it was one punch and hence seen as relatively minor.

If you really want to see "Care in the Community" at work, go to Hastings. When CC was introduced, London emptied itself of problem cases and sent them to Hastings because property was cheap due to lack of employment. I visited a house with a known psychotic (with criminal convictions and cases pending) on one floor and a mentally impaired alcoholic epileptic below. The epileptic was in no condition to look after herself and was black and blue. They were in the community, but I saw very little sign of care. Waiting lists for warden-assisted accommodation, where an eye could be kept on them, run into years.

One of my friends was schizophrenic. Lovely girl when she was well. Every few months she'd be taken (sometimes by the police) to the local psychiatric ward and sectioned. After 3 days in they still wouldn't have provided her with washkit and toothbrush and I'd get a phone call. They'd then run through their armoury of drugs trying each in turn and when she had smiled blandly at them for a couple of weeks they sent her out again. And she'd forget to take the drugs and the cycle would start again.

Don't think of it as "them" and "us". 1 in 4 people develops a mental health problem at some time in their life - if you're the "1" this is the service you'll be provided with.

It needs a major rethink.
If you don't mind Firehorse I will think of it as a 'them' and 'us' situation.Not a them and us , as in those who have mental health problems and those who do not but as 'them' = scum who use mental ill-health as an excuse to get away with crime and 'us' those who no matter what their mental health status accept that certain behaviours are wrong. The 'us' = who once back on medication (or whatever their treatment may involve)accept that any action, such as attacking an old man is wrong and as such they deserve to pay a penalty. Then there is the 'them' the group that Stephen Gordon belongs in. A group of people who feel that mental illness excuses them all wrongs they may do. Scum who find it something to be smug about when they manage to get off so lightly after causing grevious injury to a 97yr old man.
Just because 1 in 4 may have mental health issues, there is no reason to accept that those with mental health issues should be treated more leniently, than those without, when they have committed an offence.
 
#75
The_Cad said:
You can blind a pensioner and they'll make numerous psychobabble excuses for you, speak out against it and you become the villain in the piece.

It is this warped view of the world that has made society the sewer it now is.

While the criminals rights are more important than the victims this will always be the case!
 
#76
halomonkey said:
I have just received a reply from the AG's office. have to admit to being a tad disappointed.

Dear Halomonkey,

Thank you for your e-mail to this office dated 23 October 2007 requesting the Attorney General to refer the recent sentence given to Mr. Stephen Gordon.

As you may know, the Attorney General has the power, under section 35 and 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, to refer to the Court of Appeal a sentence passed in a Crown Court which appears to him to be an unduly lenient sentence (ULS). The ULS scheme only applies to certain serious offences. If the sentence was for an offence which falls within the scheme, the Attorney General’s power to refer is subject to a strict 28 day time limit from the date that the sentence was passed.

In this case, Mr. Gordon was convicted under the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 of section 20 Grievous Bodily Harm (GBH). This offence is not one which is within the scheme, and so the Attorney General is unable to take any action on this case.

I’d like to give you a little more information about the ULS scheme generally. If an offence falls within the scheme, and we are asked to consider it within the 28 day time limit, there are still some important tests that a case must pass before the Attorney General can refer a sentence to the Court of Appeal. I am enclosing some further detail about the scheme which we have published on our website at www.attorneygeneral.gsi.gov.uk which I hope will be helpful.

Decisions on whether or not to refer cases are taken only after very careful consideration of the facts and the circumstances of the case and the relevant sentencing law and guidelines.

I realise that my reply, by its very nature will be disappointing. However, I hope that at least my explanation has been of some use.

Yours sincerely,

Shariq Ali
My reply was identical (apart from the "Dear Gas Gas Gas" of course). :frustrated:
 
#77
Let us take it to the "common law court of appeals".

Much easier system there.... You think the sentance is too lenient? Form a lynch mob!!!!!

We could hand out badges too.
 
#78
Is there a chance that a fund could be set up to help the victim sue the scrote for damages. It has been proven in a law court that the git blinded/assualted the victim so is there a case?

I don't know but someone on this site may.
 
#79
Maybe there should be a competition held whereby the winner could be crowned "Most Outraged Person On A Website". It would be a stiffly contested tournament as a lot of you are extremely "outraged".

The winner could then set up a fund and every other "outraged" person could donate into it.

Yours,

Slightly Outraged of Oxon
 
#80
Perturbed said:
Is there a chance that a fund could be set up to help the victim sue the scrote for damages. It has been proven in a law court that the git blinded/assualted the victim so is there a case?

I don't know but someone on this site may.
There is almost certainly a claim there for battery. However, what is the point? The assailant has no money and will almost certainly continue to have no money for the rest of his life.

Going to court is just unnecessary hassle.

Not ideal but I'm afriad that is the way it is.
 

Top