Student protester jailed

Pug said:
no, but thats becuase i dont have the time to trudge through to make a point on the web in between my work. If you REALLY are interested, and trying to debunk a discussion, then i'd suggest you take a look yourself with an open mind at whats reported (preferably in local press as national press would give a skewed perspective in my favour no doubt). It is my belief that you would find sentences (and it doesnt matter if its 1 or 100 - it should be consistent) with as much risk to the public, and a worse outcome which has resuted in a lesser sentence.
Click to expand...

ok.

then by equal validity, he got an incredibly light sentence the normal term is 12 million years.
 
It's #### and stupid to do what he did, but surely 500 hours community service or something would be more apt here?

Jail will just mess up his whole life, and cost us money
 
scorza said:
Really? So we can look forward to seeing routine custodial sentences for things like speeding then.
Click to expand...

You can already get a custodial sentence for speeding, of course it has to be dangerous, which most speeding, according to the DFT, is not ;) (rememeber that 3% of accidents caused by exceeding the speed limit, 5% by excessive speed figure?)

Well since he handed himself into police, and pleaded guilty I'm guessing that in retrospect he doesn't think that his behaviour was in any way appropriate or acceptable.

Do you honestly think that he'll come out of prison rehabilitated?
Click to expand...

No, because our prison system needs substantial reform, however, that doesn't mean he shouldn't be given a custodial sentence. There are far more people who shouldn't be in prison than this clown, but they aren't protesting against measures you don't like (and, from previous arguments, don't actually understand).

I wonder if you'd be so vindictive if he wasn't protesting against your precious government's plans for higher education at the time?
Click to expand...

Yes, because his activity warrants a good custodial sentence.
 
scorza said:
Really? So we can look forward to seeing routine custodial sentences for things like speeding then.



Well since he handed himself into police, and pleaded guilty I'm guessing that in retrospect he doesn't think that his behaviour was in any way appropriate or acceptable.

Do you honestly think that he'll come out of prison rehabilitated?



I wonder if you'd be so vindictive if he wasn't protesting against your precious government's plans for higher education at the time?
Click to expand...


Maybe the fact Sky News has high definition pictures of the idiot doing it may well of just meant he couldnt deny it so did the right thing and turned himself in, must have looked good in 3D.
 
How long would a drink driver get?

Another thought, why would he be throwing that off the roof at people anyway? Surely there is some sort of malice involved there? Intent to injure? Could that not be on a par with someone who has intent of going out to kick seven sisters out of someone?
 
shauncr91 said:
According to this, it would appear you can actually be sentenced to 3 months in prison.
Click to expand...
Ah right, 3 months = 3 years now? Also, see if you can find a news article which talks about someone being jailed for DD where there wasn't some aggravating factor (e.g. perverting the course of justice, failing to stop, repeated offences, etc). Like I said, drink driving was a pretty weak straw man.
 
kenmare said:
Write for the daily mail much? Using emotive language and convoluted event planning dosen't mean that was how it happened.

Could quite easily have been "some guys were ****ing around with the fire extinguisher's, they were empty/no longer working and were scattered around. The guy came across one at a particularly rowdy moment and without thinking threw it over the edge".
Click to expand...

but he could equally have planned it out. The end of the day anyone picking it up a fire extinguisher and tossing it over the edgge and not thinking for a moment it could hurt someone deserves whatever they get.

Not sure if this was you, so apologies if it wasn't, but to call a situation like this merely a government plot to control us through the law is moronic. Even if it WAS some dastardly plan I'm fine with that if it stops people nearly killing others.
 
I'd have thought something like 3 months would have being better, 3 years is harsh I think, because some people who've killed have probably got less than that.

If you ever watch a program called Road Wars, there has being some proper wreckless pursuits and they get less than a year inside. I bet if I went out and murdered someone, chopped them up into bits then hung it on the telegraph pole I'd get less than that!
 
Last edited:
leaskovski said:
How long would a drink driver get?

Another thought, why would he be throwing that off the roof at people anyway? Surely there is some sort of malice involved there? Intent to injure? Could that not be on a par with someone who has intent of going out to kick seven sisters out of someone?
Click to expand...

6 months for a an already banned drunk driver who killed my friend's 15 year old son whilst driving down a pedestrianised area a few years ago.
 
Errm actually does any one remember some people (superwza maybe) saying that this guy was "definitely a government plant" when this happened??
 
Durzel said:
Ah right, 3 months = 3 years now? Also, see if you can find a news article which talks about someone being jailed for DD where there wasn't some aggravating factor (e.g. perverting the course of justice, failing to stop, repeated offences, etc). Like I said, drink driving was a pretty weak straw man.
Click to expand...

It's a perfectly fine reflection of the crime... Attempting to drop a heavy weight on an innocent persons head is far more malicious than driving a vehicle while drunk, both can have deadly outcomes but one is far more intentional. This lad was of (We are led to believe) a completely sober mind and aware of what he was doing, claiming a shot of adrenaline in the situation is an outrageous excuse to make it more reasonable.
 
bledd. said:
It's #### and stupid to do what he did, but surely 500 hours community service or something would be more apt here?

Jail will just mess up his whole life, and cost us money
Click to expand...

Sensible, I like it.

Goberpiles316 said:
Maybe the fact Sky News has high definition pictures of the idiot doing it may well of just meant he couldnt deny it so did the right thing and turned himself in, must have looked good in 3D.
Click to expand...

The fact that he turned himself in should have counted for something, not getting banged up for nearly 3 years! Out of curiosity, would he have gotten higher if he hadn't handed himself in?

Also, do you not have to be warned you are being recorded for film to considered as evidence? (Hence CCTV signs etc)

No1newts said:
but he could equally have planned it out. The end of the day anyone picking it up a fire extinguisher and tossing it over the edgge and not thinking for a moment it could hurt someone deserves whatever they get.

Not sure if this was you, so apologies if it wasn't, but to call a situation like this merely a government plot to control us through the law is moronic. Even if it WAS some dastardly plan I'm fine with that if it stops people nearly killing others.
Click to expand...

Again with the form of language.

"government plot to control us" is just stupid speak.

Not beyond the pail that it suited a lot of people that a harsh example was to be made of.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom