Murdoch shaving foam attack guy gets 6 weeks in jail

scorza · 3 Aug 2011 at 13:26

Vonhelmet said:
So basically, we don't like to see justice done when we don't like the victim, right?

I think it's more a case of not liking seeing justice only done when the victim is rich and powerful. I've no problem with a 6 week prison sentence for assault, and I accept that shoving a shaving foam pie into someone's face is assault. However when we regularly see serial offenders not being given custodial sentences for punching people, causing physical injury you have to wonder what the difference is? Why should assaulting someone in parliament be more serious than assaulting someone in the street? Which one threatens the establishment more?

Robbo said:
Can you really not think of a reason why?

Perhaps because she's rich and powerful? and it would also highlight the UK's shambolic legal system to the entire world. Apparently Wendi Deng was the top news story in China for 48 hours after the incident - imagine how embarrassing it would have been for the UK if she'd have been arrested and charged for defending her husband from an assault?

PiKe · 3 Aug 2011 at 13:28

Robbo said:
Another clueless person that doesn't know what 'attacked' means.

Can you really not think of a reason why?

Well it seems the law changes depending on who is involved.

If someone throws a pie at someone else in the street, then I run over and smack the 'attacker' in the face, guess who is going to get the assault charge.

Mat · 3 Aug 2011 at 13:28

Blimey that was a close shave. I bet he missed a larger sentence by a whisker...

Robbo · 3 Aug 2011 at 13:30

scorza said:
Perhaps because she's rich and powerful?

No...

PiKe said:
Well it seems the law changes depending on who is involved.

If someone throws a pie at someone else in the street, then I run over and smack the 'attacker' in the face, guess who is going to get the assault charge.

The law doesn't change, the case may well change depending on the situation, place and intention of the attacker, etc.

PiKe · 3 Aug 2011 at 13:31

The intention of Jonnie was to embarrass not to harm.

So the reaction of Murdoch's wife, was unreasonable.

Robbo · 3 Aug 2011 at 13:33

PiKe said:
The intention of Jonnie was to embarrass not to harm.

So the reaction of his wife, was unreasonable.

Embarrass and cause fear and alarm. That was all pretty clear just from watching it.

Her reaction couldn't be deemed unreasonable as it all happened in a split second, she was defending her husband. It's as simple as that.

Stanners · 3 Aug 2011 at 13:44

Robbo said:
Embarrass and cause fear and alarm. That was all pretty clear just from watching it.

Her reaction couldn't be deemed unreasonable as it all happened in a split second, she was defending her husband. It's as simple as that.

Can you explain to me when it is ok to strike someone back in an incident that you are not involved. For example, we are on a night out and someone decide's to empty a pint of lager on your head, am i ok to strike them as your friend ?

I fully agree he should be sentenced for what he did, but not with custodial as the system is collapsing as it is. A hefty fine and a large community service order would have been more appropriate.

Robbo · 3 Aug 2011 at 13:47

It wasn't clear at that point that all he was doing was trying to cover him in foam, so what she did was perfectly justifiable and reasonable as far as I'm concerned.

If someone emptied a pint of lager on my head, I'd damn well expect you to 'strike' them

scorza · 3 Aug 2011 at 13:51

Robbo said:
It wasn't clear at that point that all he was doing was trying to cover him in foam, so what she did was perfectly justifiable and reasonable as far as I'm concerned.

Two things that are irrelevant as far as English law is concerned

Stanners · 3 Aug 2011 at 13:51

I would defend your honour

Robbo · 3 Aug 2011 at 13:55

scorza said:
Two things that are irrelevant as far as English law is concerned

Apparently not!

Stanners said:
I would defend your honour

Vonhelmet · 3 Aug 2011 at 13:55

scorza said:
Two things that are irrelevant as far as English law is concerned

You've already demonstrated at great length that you don't understand the law on this point.

PermaBanned · 3 Aug 2011 at 14:04

I would give him community service, then declare that he'd already fulfilled it

Richie · 3 Aug 2011 at 17:49

Why are people asking the question "why didn't Mrs Murdoch get done for assault?"

What she did was self defence pure and simple. Anyone still asking the above question blatantly does not understand the law in this regard.

Tefal · 3 Aug 2011 at 17:53

PiKe said:
His wife not being jailed for assaulting Jonnie Marbles? If not why not.

Britain has very robust self defence (and defence of others) laws?

Two things that are irrelevant as far as English law is concerned

err actually, what you believed to be happening at the time is very important in the law.

Tefal · 3 Aug 2011 at 17:54

PermaBanned said:
I would give him community service, then declare that he'd already fulfilled it

Any country run by you would be quite horrific wouldn't it?

Where the protections of law only apply to those who support you and it's declared open season on anyone who believes the contrary to you?

[TW]Fox · 3 Aug 2011 at 18:00

It really is quite simple - you don't do that sort of thing in a parliamentry select committee hearing into a serious event. If you think you can, you'll be rewarded with a custodial sentance.

Can you imagine what would happen if he had been let off? Whats to stop a million other people like him ruining every further hearing?

LordSplodge · 3 Aug 2011 at 18:06

He committed assault. He got jail. That's not the issue. The biggest issue here (IMNSHO) is the idiot that pied Murdoch took attention away from the phone "hacking" scandal and istead focused it on Murdoch being pied in the face.

I'd have jailed him for that alone.

I don't like Murdoch, however that does not mean the guy should not have got jail. Simple really.

SubScape · 3 Aug 2011 at 18:28

What I want to know is, how did nobody notice him get out a paper plate and squirt some foam on it without realising what he was probably going to do, and how he got into the hearing in the first place.

PermaBanned · 3 Aug 2011 at 18:36

xxela1337 said:
What I want to know is, how did nobody notice him get out a paper plate and squirt some foam on it without realising what he was probably going to do, and how he got into the hearing in the first place.

My guess is that the people sitting next to him did, they just didn't want to stop him since it would liven up a day of sitting in a room listening to some depraved ********* lie straight to your face.