Man of Honour
Throw the book at him!
Oh wait they did, job jobbed!
Oh wait they did, job jobbed!
Dubious Justice - can anyone explain?
- Thread starter Dis86
- Start date
Caporegime
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.
Last edited:
They hadn't left. I suggest you read again.
Caporegime
There is no way that dude in the first link is 27. He looks like he is in his mid 40's at least.
Caporegime
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.
Caporegime
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!
Caporegime
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?
Last edited:
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 himwww.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.
Yeah, we need to deal with these people a lot more effectively. given the tick boxing exercise currently in place he's probably had a really sus claim if his failed.
While we can't forcibly deport everyone (we need some other measures to make failed asylum applicants and other illegals self-deport) we could prioritise those who commit criminal offenses, especially violent ones or similar.
He should be detained while he appeals the asylum decision and if it fails then he should be deported, we can't detain all asylum applicants but we could definitely make an exception for those who commit crimes and prioritise deporting them.
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?
Caporegime
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?
Last edited:
What part of simple one word answer was confusing?
Last edited:
Caporegime
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.
So in summary - man tries and fails to set fire to a duvet and a few bits of paper, refuses to show his hands to police a few weeks later after claiming to be covered in kerosene (and gets tasered for it) and apparently also claimed to be laying on a railway - he gets a 4 month sentence suspended for 12 months for that little collection of criminal behaviour.
Held up as a comparison as to why this should have been a more severe punishment are...
Example A - 8 month sentence - a man threatening to blow up a petrol station, waving a lighter around whilst holding a petrol pump requiring staff to physically intervene to stop him, threatening to return to vandalise the petrol station and with a history of over 100 previous convictions, some of which were of a violent nature, with multiple previous jail sentences
Example B - 20 month sentence, 10 month to be served - a man who admitted to posting a series of messages online over the course of a week goading people into setting fire to a hotel full of people and inciting racial hatred, who showed little to no remorse ("said if the hotel had burnt down, it would have taught the owners a lesson"), with a history of multiple previous convictions including criminal damage
People with history of criminal behaviour engage in more crime and get sentenced for it. Person with no apparent criminal history engages in crime and gets suspended sentence. Shock.
Held up as a comparison as to why this should have been a more severe punishment are...
Example A - 8 month sentence - a man threatening to blow up a petrol station, waving a lighter around whilst holding a petrol pump requiring staff to physically intervene to stop him, threatening to return to vandalise the petrol station and with a history of over 100 previous convictions, some of which were of a violent nature, with multiple previous jail sentences
Example B - 20 month sentence, 10 month to be served - a man who admitted to posting a series of messages online over the course of a week goading people into setting fire to a hotel full of people and inciting racial hatred, who showed little to no remorse ("said if the hotel had burnt down, it would have taught the owners a lesson"), with a history of multiple previous convictions including criminal damage
People with history of criminal behaviour engage in more crime and get sentenced for it. Person with no apparent criminal history engages in crime and gets suspended sentence. Shock.
Caporegime
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.
Last edited:
Soldato
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
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.
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?
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.
Last edited:
He was protesting receiving medical treatment? And resisting arrest?