- This topic has 2 replies, 1 voice, and was last updated January 18, 2005 at 12:21 am by globalloon.
-
AuthorPosts
-
January 17, 2005 at 2:17 pm #1036116
Anonymous
The two toffs who threatened ravers with shotguns have been mollicoddled by judge john bull. although the minimum sentance for possesing a shotgun without a licence is five years, the judge thought that destruction of property and threatened loss of life was a minor incident compared, giving the two guilty just THREE MONTHS in the nick.
other enlightened comments from the judicial fuckwit include: ” A judge said that he recognised that many law-abiding people would take the view that the organisers and revellers got what they deserved when the pair shot at speakers and car tyres.”
and “The incredible volume of the music from the amplifiers powered by the portable generator carried on throughout the night, totally depriving many residents within a quite wide radius of any sleep whatsoever.”
overstating the case? noone in miles got anysleep whatsoever? who the fuck is he kidding?
if the shooters had been young, poor, or wearing hoods, they would have got years. yet another peice of evidence, that its one law for the rich, another for the poor..
what is the best way to complain about this?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/southern_counties/4176201.stm
January 17, 2005 at 7:04 pm #1063836this is a trickey place legally…
the climate at the moment with regard to private property leans heavily towards the rights of the owner… just last week in the news i heard it being mentioned that people could use ‘whatever means neccessary’ to defend their property: this actually isn’t legally acurate… what was that farmer’s name? the one who got banged up… for shooting a burglar (in the back!! 😡 his last words apparently were ‘help me! Mum!’).
but cases like that one… and this one… have really brought into focus that trespass is viewed very dimly by the courts
as with all the legal system, protecting property is valued much more highly than human life or the right to be free from violence (possible life sentance for armed robbery, or a year or two for rape :confused:)
I hate violence, or even the threat of violence. these two women are a couple of stupid bitches if they think that even holding a gun, let alone loading a gun when you’re angry is a good idea.
But what would a judge do? if he gave them a year? that’s as much as some rapists get. imagine the outcry! I think that might have generated even more resentment towards party people from sections of society that don’t even notice us currently. as it is, well, 3 months is not a long sentance for this typpe of crime where the potential for real harm is clear… but a first offence nonetheless, and i reckon these women (and others like them) will think twice before waving a shotgun around again…
I hope!
i don’t know if this is even a rich / poor or class issue… I’ve been let off by the judge because of my ‘good character’… to a certain extent, if any of us breaks the law, we have to hope for a sympathetic judge (judge pickles?)
it’s the nature of the beast
January 18, 2005 at 12:21 am #1063835i hear what you’re saying about public outcry if they got lots of time, and i dont agree with prison a huge amount, so it was more that 3 years would have seemed more fair when i look at other cases i’ve followed. i dont agree with it but there should be one rule for everyone.
couple of points, tho..it was a woman groundskeeper and her under keeper, who was a bloke. he smashed someone with the butt of his shotgun in the face, but didn’t seem to get done for it (no charges pressed i imagine). Also, it wasn’t their land that they were protecting, so that muddys their defence slightly.
as for being a deterent, i cant see it really. they’ll be out of jail in a month, and prolly in an open prison. i doubt they’ll get buggered in the showers. will prolly shit them right up tho.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.