Scumbag [racist Charlton] fans

[Pretty pink fairy]

Are you a professionaly trained fool, or just a talented amateur?

you haven't answered the question
regards
DR

 

[Buzzer]

You state that the sentencing was disproportionate, and if it was simply for singing a few songs on a train then I would agree, irrespective of the content of those songs. Reports would however suggest otherwise.

If it was just for singing then how do you explain, "Prosecutors said the men were convicted after witnesses complained of sexual and racially motivated abuse"

Of course the singing and the subject of that is a headline grabber but there has to be more than a group of men politely singing a song!

Neither you nor I was in court to hear full details of what occurred and as such we can only leave justice in the hands of the jury who found the men guilty of the aggravated public order offence and the judge who passed the sentence.

If there is anyone to blame for any possible consequences that may arise from this case then it has to be the media. It is the way the media reports such cases that leads some to claim that the sentence handed down is 'ridiculously harsh' - it is a shame that so many take what they read in the press as the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth!

I never said they weren't guilty of the charges nor did I criticise the jury's decision. It's clearly disproportionate because they got a year inside for verbal abuse whereas everyone can find case after case where serious physical or sexual assault has received a lesser or comparable sentence. And it's disproportionate compared to other groups who cause equal offence, are equally as intimidating.

If you want to point the finger of blame then clearly the fault lies with these men but also with a Met police force still guilt ridden with having so spectacularly messed up and misled with the original Lawrence prosecution.

Sexually motivated abuse? A few years ago on the Clapham train up to Milton Keynes for the MK Dons game, the carriage I was on was chocka full of Albion fans pissed up and saying all sorts to some young women. People not going to the match got off the train - they felt intimidated, genuinely scared. If any of those had made a formal complaint then never in a million years would the culprits have gone down for a year.

 

[Pretty pink fairy]

I never said they weren't guilty of the charges nor did I criticise the jury's decision. It's clearly disproportionate because they got a year inside for verbal abuse whereas everyone can find case after case where serious physical or sexual assault has received a lesser or comparable sentence. And it's disproportionate compared to other groups who cause equal offence, are equally as intimidating.

If you want to point the finger of blame then clearly the fault lies with these men but also with a Met police force still guilt ridden with having so spectacularly messed up and misled with the original Lawrence prosecution.

Sexually motivated abuse? A few years ago on the Clapham train up to Milton Keynes for the MK Dons game, the carriage I was on was chocka full of Albion fans pissed up and saying all sorts to some young women. People not going to the match got off the train - they felt intimidated, genuinely scared. If any of those had made a formal complaint then never in a million years would the culprits have gone down for a year.

no point in pussy footing about over this it's obviously all to do with football, the next lot on the hit list are the flares and smoke bomb brigade ......end of thread !!!
regards
DR

 

[Buzzer]

I did feel revulsion to the poppy burning...it was extemely disrespectful, and as many muslims have died for Britain in two world wars, pretty stupid....in fact, I will be probably one of the few people on here that will be at the Rembrance service in Brighton, next month. Whether you, me or anybody else feels revulsion, the law the the land has different tariffs.. which is the point.

If the authorities had the determination to send the poppy-burners down for a year they would have prosecuted them under a law that provided that tariff. The poppy-burners knew full well how offensive their actions were and probably expected a custodial sentence. The authorities clearly didn't want to make martyrs of them.

 

[daveinprague]

you haven't answered the question
regards
DR

Read back through the thread. Read your post. Feel stupid. Although, you must be getting immune to that by now.

 

[Pretty pink fairy]

Read back through the thread. Read your post. Feel stupid. Although, you must be getting immune to that by now.

not at all ,still waiting for an answer
regards
DR

 

[Creaky]

I never said they weren't guilty of the charges nor did I criticise the jury's decision. It's clearly disproportionate because they got a year inside for verbal abuse whereas everyone can find case after case where serious physical or sexual assault has received a lesser or comparable sentence. And it's disproportionate compared to other groups who cause equal offence, are equally as intimidating.

If you want to point the finger of blame then clearly the fault lies with these men but also with a Met police force still guilt ridden with having so spectacularly messed up and misled with the original Lawrence prosecution.

Sexually motivated abuse? A few years ago on the Clapham train up to Milton Keynes for the MK Dons game, the carriage I was on was chocka full of Albion fans pissed up and saying all sorts to some young women. People not going to the match got off the train - they felt intimidated, genuinely scared. If any of those had made a formal complaint then never in a million years would the culprits have gone down for a year.

But if they had been sent down for a year would you have said the sentence was unduly harsh? - What if it had been their second, third or fourth offence?

The sentences varied quite dramatically for the seven accused - from a six month suspended sentence to 18 months in prison so unless the judge was being capricious there were obviously differentiating factors between the defendants - a six month suspended sentence for a first time offender doesn't for instance seem overly harsh - the length of the sentence isn't related in any way to their age which would suggest that some either behaved differently than the others and/or they weren't first time offenders - if the latter then I find it difficult to understand claims that the sentences were harsh.

Whichever way you look at it the difference in the sentences demonstrate that the media hasn't reported all the facts and as such none of us can say the sentences were either harsh nor lenient.

 

[Guinness Boy]

But if they had been sent down for a year would you have said the sentence was unduly harsh? - What if it had been their second, third or fourth offence?

The sentences varied quite dramatically for the seven accused - from a six month suspended sentence to 18 months in prison so unless the judge was being capricious there were obviously differentiating factors between the defendants - a six month suspended sentence for a first time offender doesn't for instance seem overly harsh - the length of the sentence isn't related in any way to their age which would suggest that some either behaved differently than the others and/or they weren't first time offenders - if the latter then I find it difficult to understand claims that the sentences were harsh.

Whichever way you look at it the difference in the sentences demonstrate that the media hasn't reported all the facts and as such none of us can say the sentences were either harsh nor lenient.

You mean there's a chance one of them had been caught singing nasty words before? Like some sort of hideous cross between Bruno Mars and Tommy Robinson?

 

[Creaky]

You mean there's a chance one of them had been caught singing nasty words before? Like some sort of hideous cross between Bruno Mars and Tommy Robinson?

No - there was a chance that as Buzzer put it they had behaved in a way that had genuinely scared innocent members of the public!

 

[cjd]

No - there was a chance that as Buzzer put it they had behaved in a way that had genuinely scared innocent members of the public!

The prisons could be full after trick or treat night...!

 

[wellquickwoody]

It'll put a message out to others. Sometimes you have to make an example of these people.

Exactly this. There is a huge rise in open racism in this country at present, as demonstrated by all the new neo-Nazi groups that have popped up in the past few years, a lot of it revolving around football. 'Harsh' sentencing may have a deterrent effect on others, something very much needed where such racism is concerned. Also this case has taken nearly two years to come to court, so it's hardly a kneejerk reaction, but one based on a well built up case, involving dozens of witness statements, etc. Each case is taken on its own merit, and if the "they wouldn't have been jailed if they'd been ethnic, they'd have all been given free council houses, quack quack quack" divwits on here can't see that, can I ask them a question - how long a custodial sentence did that woman who was filmed on a racist rant on a Croydon tram end up getting? Answer: None, she was given community service. As I say, every case is judged on its own merits, and the length of these pillocks' sentences merely illustrates quite how vile their behaviour must have been. And the person who suggested it might just have been an one-off must live on Planet Loopyfruit - the sort of people who would even know a Stephen Lawrence chant don't strike me as the sort of people who would only sing it once.

I think you would care to remember that the words 'football' and 'Stephen Lawrence' were mentioned in the reports. This may go some way to explain the ridiculously harsh sentences.

 

[Creaky]

I think you would care to remember that the words 'football' and 'Stephen Lawrence' were mentioned in the reports. This may go some way to explain the ridiculously harsh sentences.

Six months suspended - ridiculously harsh

How would you explain the difference in sentences?

 

[pork pie]

Have you, or anybody you know, had muslims trying to convert?

I have, and it is REVERT not convert. These people believe that we are all born as Muslims, and get converted to other religions. Thus we are REVERTED if we change to Islam.

Yep, what a load of bollox.

 

[pork pie]

If thats the tariff, I would guess so, or do you believe the judiciary and establishment is full of left wingers, and out to destroy England, as in my experience, the judiciary, and the establishment are a little bit more to the right.

Yes, most still are hangovers from the Blair times when his cosy-up left wing views, based upon his tart's views, destroyed our nation.

 

[pork pie]

where have people stated they hate Muslims, you might need a chain saw to remove that chip
regards
DR

Chip? This clown has a rain forest on his shoulder! Thank **** he is in a soviet block country whre he belongs. Every thread is poluted by his pinko crap.

 

[daveinprague]

aw DR has a friend.

 

[BadFish]

aw DR has a friend.

...

 

[daveinprague]

Why is it always the 'angry little men', who tell everybody they have chips on their shoulders.

 

[LA1972]

How much bird are you looking at for singing "Ten German Bombers"

 

[daveinprague]

Why would anybody be arrested for singing 10 German bombers?