Dubious Justice - can anyone explain?

[Dis86]

So, this lovely individual has just been given a suspended sentence.

Failed asylum seeker threatened to burn down flat while paramedics were inside

Ali Raswli was annoyed with the Home Officer when he tried to light a duvet inside his home, while medical staff were trying to help him

www.chroniclelive.co.uk

This is for actively trying to set a council provided flat on fire with himself and emergency workers inside, threatening to do so on another occasion, trespass on a railway and resisting arrest.

This weirdo was just jailed for threatening to set fire to a petrol station.

https://www.northwales.police.uk/news/north-wales/news/news/2024/october/man-who-threatened-to-set-fire-to-anglesey-petrol-station-jailed/

This fine specimen was jailed for suggesting someone should set a fire at an asylum hotel.

Mansfield man who called for hotel attack jailed

John England pleaded guilty to stirring up racial hatred with his Facebook posts.

www.bbc.co.uk

Why are people who are threatening to do something given a greater sentence than someone who actually does it, and other crimes?

 

[Dis86]

Probably something to do with this:



It was also made very clear that those involved in rioting or inciting racial hatred online during that period would be dealt with more swiftly and severely.

As always, context is everything in these cases, and trying to compare sentences on a like-for-like basis doesn't really work.

How does that explain petrol station boy?

Why should what day of the week you commit a crime determine your sentence? Surely sentences should be based upon the severity of what you did and your past offending?

 

[Dis86]

The petrol station article is much less detailed, he may well have had previous convictions.

The day of the week doesn't determine your punishment, but as I said, it was made very clear that people who tried to fan the flames (pardon the pun) during and in the aftermath of those riots would be dealt with more severely.

It's not the gotcha you think it is.

Again, why does that matter? The crime is what matters. This just shows political interference in the justice system and to be blunt, how far does that go?

 

[Dis86]

It matters because you're trying to compare very different situations and you've given two examples of people with multiple prior convictions, one of them with 105 convictions for 220 offences. It's been a long time since the justice system worked in such a way that you got the same sentence just because of the type of crime you committed, without taking anything else into consideration.

Emergency workers face similar threats every day from people of all backgrounds, and the consequences range from no further action to jail.

But it wasn't a threat. He actively tried to start the fire. He actively resisted arrest.

Agree that you have to take other things in to consideration but surely one of those critical things should be whether you actually did something or just talked about it?

 

[Dis86]

Because he pleaded "not-guilty" and therefore will stand trial for any guilt to be proven.

Everyone else plead guilty; either didn't have the money to survive waiting for a trial or were advised to plead guilty to get it over and done with and have a discount added onto their sentence for early plea.

You're wrong. Not everyone else plead guilty.

2 seconds on Google throws up the following;

Lincoln man pleads not guilty to Liverpool disorder

Lloyd Killner of Burton Road appeared at Liverpool Magistrates' Court on Monday.

www.bbc.com

Guilty Or Innocent? Alleged Rioters Face UK Judges

Some appear defiant, others hold back tears. Dozens of far-right rioters are being fast-tracked through UK courts as authorities try to bring a week of violent disturbances to an end.

www.barrons.com

Not guilty, kept on remand. Unlike a certain labour rep who was released.

 

[Dis86]

The paramedics had left the premises once he fancied himself as a fire starter, so the only person he could have potentially harmed at that point was himself with his dubious attempt. That for me isn't as serious as lifting a petrol pump nozzle with a lighter in your hand. The potential for one of these things to go very wrong and threaten the lives of many people in the vicinity is much greater.

Fuel pump gadgie also has an absolutely insane criminal record.

They hadn't left. I suggest you read again.

 

[Dis86]

I said they left as soon as he fancied himself a fire starter, i.e. when he started dropping burning pieces of paper on the floor.

Do you have an actual argument here, or have you moved on to pedantry after your failed thread?

So they were there when he tried to start the fire, weren't they?
Not pedantry. Facts. I'm sorry you're averse to them.

 

[Dis86]

I said as much, can you not read or something? Nowhere in any of my posts did I claim that they had left beforehand.

You have no argument and have resorted to deflection.

You claimed they'd left and so weren't at risk. They were because he was actively trying to start the fire with them there!

 

[Dis86]

No, I didn't, I claimed that they left as soon as he fancied himself a firestarter and if the fire had taken he'd have only harmed himself. The people at the petrol station were also at risk because it wasn't just words, it was actions.

Again, do you have an actual argument here or just pedantry?

Let's see if you can respond with clarity. Simple one word answers will do.

Were they present when he tried to start a fire, and so at risk if the fire had taken?

 

[Dis86]

I've already made that clear above.

How about we look at the other scenario, where you think it was all words and no action. Were there people at the petrol station when Johnson lifted the pump with a lighter in his hand?

What part of simple one word answer was confusing?

 

[Dis86]

Believe it or not, people don't have to play your silly game.

You ****** around with this thread and got found out.

Uh huh. Sure. You keep believing that when you're literally incapable of answering the simplest of question.

 

[Dis86]

We were not in court, so we don't know all the details, but honestly this sounds like the media have deliberately twisted it to sound like he was threatening the paramedics, when it sounds more like he was just threatening to set fire to his flat as a protest. There is a huge difference.

I don't understand this lack of trust in the justice system. I feel sure that had there been a real and intended threat to the paramedics then the man would have been jailed.

I mean, seriously, this is conspiracy theory stuff - that all justices are insanely woke or something.

He was protesting receiving medical treatment? And resisting arrest?

 

[Dis86]

I've answered several of your questions in this thread and the answer to that one has already been given.

You, on the other hand, have deflected on several occasions and seem to have blamed it on political interference and/or one example being just words and the other actions, when that's absolutely not the case.

It's pretty obvious to anyone who's bothered to look beyond the surface why the sentences were different.

How's it not political interference when, at the request of politicians, trials were fast tracked and received sterner sentences?

 

[Dis86]

So? Loads of people do that every day and they don't end up in prison.

Those people don't tend to try and set fire to the paramedics.

 

[Dis86]

This would still mean conveniently forgetting that John England had several previous convictions (as did many of the rioters and those caught inciting racial hatred online) which would have been taken into account in his sentence.

It's easy to look at it in a black and white way and put it all down to political interference, but for me that only potentially tells part of the story and when you look at the context of what happened in each scenario and their criminal history, it's not so clear cut.

It wouldn't mean forgetting anything. I've posted on here before demonstrating examples of people's with literally hundreds of convictions who have not been jailed for violent crimes.