Superphil
Dismember
The student bloke who misbehaved in Millbank has been sent down, thoughts?
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
Student rioter - going down
- Thread starter Superphil
- Start date
Tricky Dicky
New member
Well, he won't be in debt with a student loan, now will he - which is what he wanted, presumably.
Da Man Clay
T'Blades
- Dec 16, 2004
- 16,280
Quite right.
Hotchilidog
Well-known member
- Jan 24, 2009
- 9,050
If it's the guy that threw the fire extinguisher off the roof then he can have no complaints, it was dumb, dangerous and could have killed someone or at worst seriously injured someone. Seemed like an inevitable outcome. Other than that no thoughts really.
Sussex Nomad
Well-known member
He may get well 'looked after' now too.
Dick Knights Mumm
Take me Home Falmer Road
It needed to be a custodial sentence. Just because you are carried away in a crowd does not give you licence to act any way you like.
TWOCHOICEStom
Well-known member
This the knobhead that threw the fire extinguisher?
If so, good. Could so easily have killed someone.
If so, good. Could so easily have killed someone.
Superphil
Dismember
- Thread starter
- #9
Yup, this is him
BBC News - Student protester jailed for throwing fire extinguisher
He comes from Dibden Purlieu, in Hampshire
Last edited:
The Spanish
Well-known member
Yup, this is him
BBC News - Student protester jailed for throwing fire extinguisher
He comes from Dibden Purlieu, in Hampshire
first dave gilmours son now mel smiths. pampered little turds.
drew
Drew
Did you mean to put it this way round?
Hotchilidog
Well-known member
- Jan 24, 2009
- 9,050
I think I did. doh!
Elvis
Well-known member
desprateseagull
New member
news reports say the judge praised his mum (gawd bless er) for encouraging him to give himself up..
methinks he would have kept shtum, otherwise..? unlikely he would have got away with it, with all the cctv coverage etc..
ironically, his prison costs may be more than any loan he might have got..
methinks he would have kept shtum, otherwise..? unlikely he would have got away with it, with all the cctv coverage etc..
ironically, his prison costs may be more than any loan he might have got..
Bold Seagull
strong and stable with me, or...
A lot of holier than thou people on here. I'm not condoning his actions at all, but wonder if the punishment is disproportionate? Afterall, a motorist can drive down my road, a 30mph residential street, at 40 or sometimes 50 mph, seriously endangering the lives of many of the kids that cross to get to their mates houses etc. the elderly crossing the road who perhaps do not anticipating or being able to judge the speed, and yet these motorists who have made the conscious decision to drive at that speed, and in turn endanger lives will get 3 points and a small fine. The same could be said of any of us who have jumped traffic lights etc. etc. You are committing an offence that seriously endangers the lives of others.
The irony for us the tax payer, is that his cost to society is now much greater and a burden on a creaking prison system. In this case the custodial sentence should be about 'reform', and a deterrent to others. But I cannot personally see the benefit to society of putting a young man with no previous convictions, in prison for that amount of time? Surely a more lengthy community service based sentence would have benefited society, and in turn reformed the young man in a much more positive way than what could turn out to be a very destructive measure in the long term.
Dick Knight's Mum made the valid point 'It needed to be a custodial sentence. Just because you are carried away in a crowd does not give you licence to act any way you like.' So why doesn't this apply to other offences? How many objects are thrown at football matches and even if caught, unless injury has occurred, there is generally no sentence. How many potential injuries could be caused by people fighting down West Street on a Saturday night, and yet unless someone actually gets hurt, it's in the cell for a night, then off you go son, try not to get in trouble next week. You would get less of a sentence for glassing someone, believe me I know as it happened to my cousin, and when the guy who glassed him was convicted by the jury, it turned out it was the 6th time he had done it, and he still got under 3 years, and yet he will 100% be out and do that again.
To put this in context, if you are caught carrying a dangerous knife, surely an intent to cause harm as there ever was one, 4 out of 5 convicted persons carrying knives do not go to prison. In fact, even someone convicted of stabbing someone and causing injury, is likely to face less of a sentence than this little idiot.
Like I said before everyone jumps down my throat, I'm not defending the little tosser, but I was surprised by the sentence, especially since he gave himself up, pleaded guilty and showed genuine remorse and regret. If judges are going to be tough like this consistently, then expect a lot more tax rises as we are going to have to build a lot more prisons!
The irony for us the tax payer, is that his cost to society is now much greater and a burden on a creaking prison system. In this case the custodial sentence should be about 'reform', and a deterrent to others. But I cannot personally see the benefit to society of putting a young man with no previous convictions, in prison for that amount of time? Surely a more lengthy community service based sentence would have benefited society, and in turn reformed the young man in a much more positive way than what could turn out to be a very destructive measure in the long term.
Dick Knight's Mum made the valid point 'It needed to be a custodial sentence. Just because you are carried away in a crowd does not give you licence to act any way you like.' So why doesn't this apply to other offences? How many objects are thrown at football matches and even if caught, unless injury has occurred, there is generally no sentence. How many potential injuries could be caused by people fighting down West Street on a Saturday night, and yet unless someone actually gets hurt, it's in the cell for a night, then off you go son, try not to get in trouble next week. You would get less of a sentence for glassing someone, believe me I know as it happened to my cousin, and when the guy who glassed him was convicted by the jury, it turned out it was the 6th time he had done it, and he still got under 3 years, and yet he will 100% be out and do that again.
To put this in context, if you are caught carrying a dangerous knife, surely an intent to cause harm as there ever was one, 4 out of 5 convicted persons carrying knives do not go to prison. In fact, even someone convicted of stabbing someone and causing injury, is likely to face less of a sentence than this little idiot.
Like I said before everyone jumps down my throat, I'm not defending the little tosser, but I was surprised by the sentence, especially since he gave himself up, pleaded guilty and showed genuine remorse and regret. If judges are going to be tough like this consistently, then expect a lot more tax rises as we are going to have to build a lot more prisons!
Bold Seagull, I tend to agree with you. My default position yesterday was "good, he deserved it", but when you stack up his crime against many other crimes, he seems to have got a raw deal when you consider it was a heat of the moment thing where nobody actually got hurt, and for which he admitted his guilt immediately.
There have been crimes which have been punished far less. Hit and runs, three years. Instances of sustained abuse against disabled residents in a council block, result: a few hours community service.
This bloke is being overly punished for being a floppy haired student. I suppose if you act like a cünt, you take your chances. But I'm now uncomfortable with it.
There have been crimes which have been punished far less. Hit and runs, three years. Instances of sustained abuse against disabled residents in a council block, result: a few hours community service.
This bloke is being overly punished for being a floppy haired student. I suppose if you act like a cünt, you take your chances. But I'm now uncomfortable with it.
Nathan
Well-known member
- Jan 8, 2010
- 3,784
The punishment doesn't really fit the crime. Yes, if he had killed someone the punishment would be worse, but he didn't. Not saying what he did was right, just stupid. Yes he needs to be punished, but a community service would have been better. As it goes no one was injured, and no one died.
Brian Fantana
Well-known member
Wasn't there a case recently where an assylum-seeker was given only 4 months in jail for a fatal hit-and-run on a little girl? With that in mind, it seems a bit ridiculous to give this bloke a sentence which ia eight times longer, just because he might have killed someone when doing what he did.