How's it not political interference when, at the request of politicians, trials were fast tracked and received sterner sentences?
Dubious Justice - can anyone explain?
- Thread starter Dis86
- Start date
How's it not political interference when, at the request of politicians, trials were fast tracked and received sterner sentences?
Caporegime
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.
Last edited:
Soldato
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.
It wouldn't mean forgetting anything. I've posted on here before demonstrating examples of people with literally hundreds of convictions who have not been jailed for violent crimes.
Last edited:
Caporegime
So what exactly is the point you are trying to make, because there are plenty of examples of violent criminals and those with hundreds of convictions (like the one in your OP) where they are imprisoned. The ones in your OP with previous convictions were all given prison sentences, the asylum seeker, who doesn't appear to have any previous convictions, or at least not to the same level, was not.
You also falsely claimed that he was the only one who did anything and that the others only threatened, which doesn't seem to be the case in the petrol station scenario where he lifted a fuel pump with a lighter in his hand and an employee stepped in and pushed him away.
Of these, the asylum seeker's case is the least serious in terms of the potential consequences if the threat was carried out.
Last edited:
The asylum seeker was the only one that actually attempted to start a fire hence me highlighting the conflict between threat and reality. Not only that but he committed additional offences at or around the time of his arrest for the crime he committed. The ones that were jailed were ultimately just jailed for hurty words.
Caporegime
No, the guy at the petrol station had started doing things that were directly related to what he'd threatened to do, and he was pushed away by the manager before he had the chance to take it any further.
Are you saying that if he hadn't said anything, he wouldn't have gone to jail? I’ll let you test that theory out.
Last edited:
Commissario
You might be surprised at how often something like that can happen.
The first instance sounds very much like there may well have been mental health issues involved which will make a difference.
My street is the vehicle access to a block of what used to be "oap housing" and is now housing a number of "vulnerable people", one of who from memory set fire to his flat something like 3 times in a year before he was moved on (I'm not sure if it was secure accommodation, or put inside), I think there was another one that did something similar. About once a week, sometimes more often I'll hear a heavy diesel engine at 2am and it turns out it's the overland scuba team bus heading towards it.
The thing is, no two cases are the same, something the law has recognised for a very long time, and even when the circumstances of a case are almost identical the history of the people involved will differ.
The law will see someone who makes a threat to set fire to something/their house whilst they're having some sort of breakdown, medical*, or drug related incident very differently to someone who is stone cold sober and mentally competent when they make plans to set fire to a building with people in it.
*It's almost like the justice system would prefer, generally speaking, to let medical issues be treated by medical specialists even if the general outcome might be the same (you might not get locked up in a jail, but a secure unit is often more restrictive and open ended).
Caporegime
Emergency workers face this kind of threat every day, it's not that unusual.
He didn't try to set fire to the paramedics, he tried to set a duvet on fire while they were in the premises and they left as soon as he started.
Last edited:
Yet he was charged with and found guilty of 'endangering life'.
Soldato
When did OCUK get it's own GBeebies dog whistling RSS feed? 
Caporegime
He was, that still doesn’t mean he tried to set fire to them as you put it. If he’d done that, he’d have been charged with and found guilty of a more serious offence.
Last edited:
Quite clearly a two-tier system at the moment. It's correct to crack down on rioters IMO (we saw the need for that with the London riots and it was good to nip the recent outbreak of political violence in the bud too). Facebook postings are a bit more debatable perhaps but whatever...
What is very iffy is how there is a rather different response when it's pro-Palestine/pro-terrorist supporters rather than say anti immigration supporters.
This org is openly recruiting, holding training days and then engaging in political violence/property destruction - where are the speedy justice procedures or the 2-3 year sentences for the online posts in support of this?
What is very iffy is how there is a rather different response when it's pro-Palestine/pro-terrorist supporters rather than say anti immigration supporters.
This org is openly recruiting, holding training days and then engaging in political violence/property destruction - where are the speedy justice procedures or the 2-3 year sentences for the online posts in support of this?
The org is careful not to openly commit criminal actions. Those caught don’t plead guilty and those sentenced get severe sentences.
Soldato
So by their logic if I want to stop Hamas I can go round to a Palestinian mob members house and put the windows through? Duly noted.
Soldato
Unfortunately the UK has become a dump for the worlds scum, undesirables , I for one will be wearing my v for ventedda mask on the 5th of November
The only verdict is vengeance ; a vendetta , held as a votive , not in vain , for the value and veracity of such shall one day vindicate the vigilant and the virtuous . Verily , this vichyssoise of verbiage veers most verbose, so let me simply add that it is my very good honor to meet you and you may call me V.
The only verdict is vengeance ; a vendetta , held as a votive , not in vain , for the value and veracity of such shall one day vindicate the vigilant and the virtuous . Verily , this vichyssoise of verbiage veers most verbose, so let me simply add that it is my very good honor to meet you and you may call me V.
Given that people were prosecuted for facebook/social media posts re: rioting then I'd not be so sure about that, it seems more like a subjective decision whether to pursue them.