Murdoch shaving foam attack guy gets 6 weeks in jail

[Hixxy]

staged from the start and anyone who thinks otherwise should be watching eastenders.


top cops taking money/bribes from newspaper men. how the hell did these people get into that possition if they were corruptable. that's the question that people should be asking.

if i was in charge i'd go back and check any evidence they produced in a court from when they started as a police officer.

lets see if any of them get 6 weeks jail shall we.

how deep does the rabbit hole go?

 

[Cosimo]

Jail time for a foam pie is ridiculous any way you look at it.

It might be ok at a drunken party but this is assault on an old man at a hearing. Where do you draw the line, a paper plate, something a little heavier maybe a slap or two is ok. It doesn’t matter what is used. It’s still assault.

 

[Gaygle]

There might be more to the case, but i've never known anyone to get a 6 week prison sentence for punching someone on a Saturday night.

Hell, the knobber who punched one of my friends, leaving him needing surgery on his nose and a sizeable scar, was arrested for GBH, 100 meters away with blood all over his hands is looking at the case being dropped or a slap on the wrist.

By all means there should have been a punishment, but a 6 week jail sentence does not reflect the crime committed. A fine would have been more fitting IMO.

 

[Biohazard]

So what is your problem? That the sentences for assault are too severe, or that the sentences for other crimes are too lenient? Because the first position is fairly untenable..

I disagree, in this particular case - ignoring discounts - yes the sentence would appear to be too severe in comparison to worse crimes..

http://www.southwalesguardian.co.uk/news/8798845.BNP_man_in_court/

"Leading Welsh BNP member, Kenneth Phillips, ordered to pay £85 costs and £50 pounds compensation for an assault outside Gwendraeth Valley Workingmen’s Club. Magistrates gave Phillips a 12-month conditional discharge."

http://www.hopenothate.org.uk/news/article/1349/bnp-supporters-ban-from-street-after-racist

Chappell, who lives on a houseboat in Upware, Cambridgeshire, admitted charges of racially aggravated harassment, racially aggravated common assault and disorderly behaviour when he appeared before magistrates at Bury St Edmunds .

Magistrates made an exclusion order banning Chappell from going to Sassoon Close, in Newmarket, for the next six months, or contacting Lewis or Robert Wilford-Gittens or Nicola Rayner.

He was also ordered to pay them £75 each in compensation and made the subject of a six-month community order and a six-month supervision requirement, including that he tackles alcohol issues.

http://www.hopenothate.org.uk/news/article/810/Assault-conviction-upheld

"Enderby (pictured), the British National Party's sole representative on Redditch council, was found guilty of three counts of assault by beating at a trial at Kidderminster Magistrates' Court in January. He was fined £100 for each offence and ordered to pay £100 costs.

The assaults took place in June last year after Enderby, 45, barged into a birthday party at his mother-in-law's house. Last month Worcester Crown Court dismissed all three appeals and ordered him to pay £200 towards prosecution costs. "

I'm running through getting more examples so please bear with me but I'll come back with more.

and the second position makes sense, but that doesn't appear to be what people are arguing here.

It isn't? What do people appear to be arguing here then V/h?

Everyone seems cross that this guy was given a fair sentence, with the "lenient" sentences for other crimes coming across as a secondary concern.

Why was he given a 'fair' sentence in light of other laughable court judgements?

This is my primary concern, and I made it more than evident from my first post in the thread.

 

[Gaygle]

It doesn’t matter what is used. It’s still assault.

If he had spat at him, would he be getting 6 weeks in prison? If he had punched him would he be getting 6 weeks in prison?

With assault, like everything, there are factors to consider.

To me, it sounds like an example was made of the shaving foam thrower.

 

[Biohazard]

This is incorrect. You are not only allowed to defend yourself or others on your property.

CPS Guidance: http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/self_defence/#Reasonable_Force



So Wendi Murdoch striking the attacker as he attacked Rupert Murdoch could quite easily fall under the above.

It wasn't defence though?

It had already happened, this is more than evident.

There were several people in the way, she jumped up and smacked him repeatedly.

That is retaliation.

This is not self defence as Tefal claimed, it is common assault.

 

[Tefal]

When elsewhere, you cannot 'self defend' for other people in a legal sense.

of course you can.


You think if someone is being attacked in the street you just have to stand and watch?

 

[Biohazard]

of course you can.


You think if someone is being attacked in the street you just have to stand and watch?

Irrelevent, Murdoch wasn't being attacked anymore.

She had to practically jump over people to assault the man; it was not defence it looked like a vindictive action to me.

 

[RDM]

It wasn't defence though?

It had already happened, this is more than evident.

Is it? And more importantly was it evident to her at the time? From the small clip we have it all seems to happen at about the same time. Is what she did a reasonable action from someone put in the same position? Bearing in mind she did not at that time know what Rupert Murdoch had been assaulted with?

Put yourself in her situation, would it have been reasonable for you to take the same action if one of your loved ones was being assaulted?

 

[Vonhelmet]

Irrelevent, Murdoch wasn't being attacked anymore.

She had to practically jump over people to assault the man; it was not defence it looked like a vindictive action to me.

As RDM posted earlier, the defence is valid based on what the accused felt at the time. If she felt that a danger was still present, then her actions are permissible.

 

[Vonhelmet]

References to past sentences.

OK, at risk of wading into conjecture, I suspect that a large part of the sentence relates to the crime having taken place in a parliamentary hearing of a high profile case. I'm not sure whether this can or has been taken into account, but I think that is the real issue here.

 

[Dolph]

You have to admire the combination of mental gymnastics and complete disregard of the law by some people in this thread just so they can try and attack the victim of a crime...

 

[Biohazard]

Is it? And more importantly was it evident to her at the time? From the small clip we have it all seems to happen at about the same time. Is what she did a reasonable action from someone put in the same position? Bearing in mind she did not at that time know what Rupert Murdoch had been assaulted with?

Yes in my opinion, and I don't think I'm alone on that.

Did anyone else in the committee room feel the need to assault the man? People were up before she was, and in place (between the victim and the attacker) before she was. None of them felt compelled to lower themself to assaulting someone, so why did she?

The points you raise are all valid yet you know I cannot answer them, nor can you, but this doesn't dectract from the fact that this was not in defence of someone else in the legal sense the threat was over and had been mitigated.

Walking across and hitting someone because of what they might have done in terms of the substance isn't self defence, this is plain silly, it's assault. Retaliation, anger what ever you want to put it down to.

Put yourself in her situation, would it have been reasonable for you to take the same action if one of your loved ones was being assaulted?

Had been assaulted, not 'was being' because the pie had been shoved on his face and he had been pulled away by this point.

Personally, of course. Heat of the moment, anger dismay love and concern. What's getting my goat is people demonising him and turning her into a saint.. on a level of reading this all off a black and white page they both committed assault.

 

[PermaBanned]

Good god, can people stop going on about his age? The man is an evil cretin, the fact that he's an 80 year old evil cretin is irrelevant.

 

[Biohazard]

You have to admire the combination of mental gymnastics and complete disregard of the law by some people in this thread just so they can try and attack the victim of a crime...

Who would be doing that Dolph?

Because all I can see is the right wing faithful ignoring the law for their own argumentative purposes and knife twisted.

 

[Tefal]

Good god, can people stop going on about his age? The man is an evil cretin, the fact that he's an 80 year old evil cretin is irrelevant.

Except that age of the victim is one of the factors taken into account when sentencing for this crime which in a thread about the sentence it's actually quite relevant .

 

[Tefal]

Who would be doing that Dolph?

Because all I can see is the right wing faithful ignoring the law for their own argumentative purposes and knife twisted.

ah so you're saying this "right wing faithful" have ran a large conspiracy to secretly change the law during this case then change it back?

 

[Cosimo]

Good god, can people stop going on about his age? The man is an evil cretin, the fact that he's an 80 year old evil cretin is irrelevant.

Talk about naivety. He’s not an evil cretin.

 

[Dolph]

Who would be doing that Dolph?

Because all I can see is the right wing faithful ignoring the law for their own argumentative purposes and knife twisted.

Well, the poster directly above you (Permabanned) would be one, you (with your attempts to completely disregard every precedent about self defence in law) would be another.

 

[Biohazard]

Well, the poster directly above you (Permabanned) would be one, you (with your attempts to completely disregard every precedent about self defence in law) would be another.

I'm not disregarding a single thing, I'm applying it logically like others are failing to do. I gain nothing out of this either which way on any level, it's just the principle that's ticking me off.

She didn't act in self defence. Well, to be fair she might have done subjectively but it was still assault in the eyes of the law.