Murdoch shaving foam attack guy gets 6 weeks in jail

Dabbles said:
On the three bold items, I have one question; why?
Click to expand...

Sex of victim - Male on female is usually treated as worse. Sexist? Not really given the same reason Age is used.

Location of assault - Someone getting assaulted in their own home is deemed worse than in the street. In Scotland, the old term "Hamesucking" is used :D (entering someone's house to assault them)

Racial Motivation - Racially (and religiously) motivated attacks are deemed worse due to the Racial/Religious element. Thats NOT to say that, for example, every attack by a white person on a black person (or vice-versa) is deemed as Racial. Racial motivation means the assault was motivated due to the victim's race and not just because he had a falling out with them :p. The same can be said for Homophobic attacks



LeJosh said:
Did you not see the lol, did you not see the "joke!" :(

Both of you, I have failed.
Click to expand...

I got it after :o
 
Tefal said:
And how do you think the daily mail headline "80 year old grandfather attacked in the street by yob" would have gone down?

think it would have had the cheers or in super/permabanned's case wishing he had been stabbed in the face instead?


Or do you think we'd have the usual "chav scum :mad:" "lock em up" replies?
Click to expand...

I believe he was right to be punished with a jail sentence, I just don't think he would have got one had it been 2 random people instead, thats why I don't think Justice is Blind.

Hope that makes sense :)
 
Can't believe someone was even punished for such a petty act. Shows how utterly inconsistent sentences are in this country.
 
Think he got what he deserved, he was an idiot looking for attention. What actually was he thinking! Did he think he was doing any good... Don't think so
 
Energize said:
Can't believe someone was even punished for such a petty act.
Click to expand...

It interupted a Parliament select committee investigating corruption in the media, police and parliament itself. It wasnt some random attack on a guy walking down the road, that would have been harsh
 
PermaBanned said:
I think who the man in question was is infinitely more important than his age.
Click to expand...

Indeed and you've got to laugh at all the 'assault' and 'battery' remarks, the very worst Murdoch was going to suffer was embarrassment.

It's a strange world where someone gets 6wks jail for having the intention of putting shaving foam in someones face and yet a person who actually hit someone (Murdoch's wife) is branded a hero. If I was walking down the street with my grandad and I punched some 'joker' who did the same you can bet your bottom I would be in a hell of a lot more trouble for my actions than him.
 
How does it? You are complaining that somebody was punished for an act you see as petty. I used sarcasm to demonstrate that I thought your opinion was ridiculous - you cannot let actions like that in an environment such as that go unpunished.
 
Seems fair to me, a premediated assault on an OAP designed to cause maximum humilation should attract a custodial sentence, irrespective of the OAP involved.
 
[TW]Fox;19730691 said:
How does it? You are complaining that somebody was punished for an act you see as petty. I used sarcasm to demonstrate that I thought your opinion was ridiculous - you cannot let actions like that in an environment such as that go unpunished.
Click to expand...

Yes, by fining them, like every other parliamentary debaucle.

A criminal record? Perhaps not.
 
[TW]Fox;19730730 said:
It was assault?
Click to expand...

Tefal said:
and battery.
Click to expand...

I see no mention of this in that article, did you guys hear the judges words for yourselves or just permitting yourselves to define the situation as you saw it? :D

Until proven otherwise in the future, there was no charges of assault or battery.

So no, it was an excessive "sentence."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom