Madness - you simply could not make it up

[katex]

You cannot compare the two cases, 'cause one was the assailant, one the victim .. entirely poles apart, and has to be discussed separately. The fact that thedorchester is doing this, negates the lad's 'bullying'. I am sure if Cashman had just been presented with the boy's case and nowt else, he would have had an entirely U-turn view of things.

I suspect that there was build up to the throwing incident and abusive language, etc., something we cannot condone.

If my lad had ever done anything like this, even on a silly whim or prank, he would have had the sharp end of my tongue or flat hand. Like other posters, I would never have dreamt of abusing an elderly person/adult in this way.

Eric, we are not that thick not to understand the reason behind the thread and what the poster was trying to say, but the analogy is way off beam. It's just a 'get at the police' theme really, nothing to do with the two cases.

[thedorchester]

Westender is right. There is a two tier system and the emphasis is on generating convictions, not on tackling crime or the underlying causes of it. Now cautions are considered convictions for purposes of statistics, which is why the number of cautions at police stations is rising rapidly. Moreover, the ability to defend against allegations is being made increasingly difficult as a result of legislation which is being rushed in. For example, legal firms shall soon have to be placed on a panel and then tender for work - the criteria, is set up in such a way that only the larger firms shall be able to bid for work. The downside for the alleged offender is that the fees for such work are being scaled back significantly, the thesis that increasing work allocated to a reduced number of firms shall offset the reduction in fees per case. The net result is that solicitors representing offenders shall be reluctant to undertake a comprehensive review of the case since it is not financially lucrative so to do. The net result is that an increasing number of offenders are likely to plead guilty to crimes since there has been insufficient input as regards the preparation of the case.

It makes a mockery of the principle of law enforcement.

[kathleen_firth]

what is the world coming too
my boyfriend got beaten up we rang the police there and then and as im pregnant i was terrified i told the police he was being beaten up and my boyfriend was lieing on the floor i thouyght he would die all the police said was we will send somebody to see you tomorrow
i had to carry my beaten boyfriend home myself they wouldnt even send out an ambulance because he could stand up. (onli just tho)
it makes me sick how they work

[garinda]

'The victim, who believed he had been hit with a stone, told police it was the latest in a series of incidents in which he had been intimidated by local youths.
Charging the boy was the only option because he had previously been issued with three reprimands, a GMP spokeswoman said.'

BBC NEWS | England | Manchester | Boy is accused of sausage assault

Perhaps this boy's parent's time would have been better spending their time punishing their child themselves. After all if they had done this after the three previous incidents, were their child was warned about his behaviour, none of this would have happened, and they wouldn't be bleating to the press about the unfair treatment dished out to their little darling.

[thedorchester]

Finally, common sense has been restored.

A judge criticised police and lawyers yesterday for bringing the case, which has already cost thousands of pounds in taxpayers' money.

District Judge Tim Devas told the youth court where the boy appeared: "I was brought up in the era of Just William. You may not remember it but this incident sounds similar.

"Clearly there are certain things that should be done with a 12-year- old and you shouldn't be bringing them into the court system unless it's absolutely necessary.

"If he has done what was suggested it is very bad behaviour.

"But is it in the public interest to prosecute a 12-year-old boy who threw a sausage?"

The sausage apparently hit the man not on his head, but his shoulder. What makes this matter even more horrific than appears at first sight is the fact that the boy has learning difficulties and attends a special needs school. Whilst it is likely difficult to entrench in the mind of any twelve year old the concept of right and wrong, it is even more difficult for someone with learning difficulties.


A spokesman for the CPS said police charged the boy 'without reference' to the CPS

The same paper reports the following:

In a case last year, Judge Jonathan Finestein criticised a decision to prosecute a boy of ten for calling his schoolfriend racist names in the playground.

He called the move 'political correctness gone mad'.

Surely all those who earlier sought to defend the charge applied to the youngster throwing a sausage are now being made to look sheepish

[thedorchester]

In yet another example in today's press of inappropriate justice, the article below shows that those who engage in more serious matters are simply let off the hook. Enjoy.

A senior doctor who savagely beat up his wife after they argued about buying a new car has escaped a prison sentence.

Anaesthetics consultant Stuart Brown, 37, threw his wife to the floor and punched her at least 24 times as she lay at his feet.

The vicious assault on Carol Mcewan followed regular verbal and physical abuse during their seven-year marriage.

But Brown, 37, who is thought to earn £100,000 a year, walked free from court after being ordered to pay her just £500 in compensation.

Perhaps if he had thrown a sausage at her instead of raining blows it may have been taken more seriously.

[SPUGGIE J]

Bought himself a good lawyer and offered a freebie to the judge no doubt.

Seriously though its absolute madness this whole carry on. Its possible for me to get done for giving the bird to some driver who isnt driving carefully. Yet should I thump em I could get away with it. Thats how this fiasco reads to me.

[garinda]

Ten year old Jon Venebales, the killer of Jamie Bulger, attended a school for children with special needs, should his behaviour be excused because of this too?

[kathleen_firth]

its all madness these days

[thedorchester]

Originally Posted by garinda

Ten year old Jon Venebales, the killer of Jamie Bulger, attended a school for children with special needs, should his behaviour be excused because of this too?

You strike me as being a bit of a numpty. There is a world of difference between putting a young child on a train track with the intention of allowing a train to pass over him and throwing a sausage at a pensioner after a verbal disagreement. The latter does not justify thousands of pounds of taxpayers resource when there are hardened criminals parading the streets.

Are you thick or is this an act?

Do not bother responding.

[garinda]

Originally Posted by thedorchester

You strike me as being a bit of a numpty. There is a world of difference between putting a young child on a train track with the intention of allowing a train to pass over him and throwing a sausage at a pensioner after a verbal disagreement. The latter does not justify thousands of pounds of taxpayers resource when there are hardened criminals parading the streets.

Are you thick or is this an act?

Do not bother responding.

I'll respond when and where I see fit, thanks ever so much.

It was you that said, and I quote,
'What makes this matter even more horrific than appears at first sight is the fact that the boy has learning difficulties and attends a special needs school.'
Which I presume, because you raised the issue, you see as some sort of defence for anti-social behaviour.

I know plenty of children with special educational needs. All are very well behaved, and none that have repeatedly harassed and attacked pensioners.

It's always sad when someone finds themselves without much of an argument, and then resorts to silly abuse.

[steeljack]

I'm of the firm conviction that if one or two well aimed smacks had been applied at the requisite time the population of "special need schools" would be 30% of the present numbers

theres probably a very good reason that the saying " spare the rod, spoil the child" Proverbs 13:24. has been part of the English language since the time of King James

[Eric]

Originally Posted by garinda

I'll respond when and where I see fit, thanks ever so much.

It was you that said, and I quote,
'What makes this matter even more horrific than appears at first sight is the fact that the boy has learning difficulties and attends a special needs school.'
Which I presume, because you raised the issue, you see as some sort of defence for anti-social behaviour.

I know plenty of children with special educational needs. All are very well behaved, and none that have repeatedly harassed and attacked pensioners.

It's always sad when someone finds themselves without much of an argument, and then resorts to silly abuse.

Silly abuse and a lot of upper case typing to cover up the weaknesses. If you don't have an point, SHOUT.

[thedorchester]

If there ever was a remote possibility (and some on here yesterday suggested there may well be) that those responsible for law enforcement are not entirely stupid, then the following story excerpted from one of the papers today serves to render such a possibility moribund.

Yet again the taxpayers are funding this nonsense. It really is a farce. Enjoy


Two female sunbathers prosecuted for flashing their breasts at CCTV camera
By JAMES MILLS -
23rd August 2007


Abbi-Louise Maple (left) and Rachel Marchant flashed their breasts at a CCTV camera after it swivelled in their direction
When Abbi-Louise Maple and Rachel Marchant saw a CCTV camera trained on them as they sat on a beach, they had a mischievous idea.
The 21-year-olds lifted their tops and flashed their bare chests at the camera before collapsing in a fit of giggles.

The young women's friends thought their prank was hilarious.

The CCTV operator, however, didn't see the funny side and called the police.

Minutes later, the two blondes were arrested, questioned and then charged with committing an act outraging public decency - an offence which carries a maximum sentence of six months prison or a £5,000 fine.

The pair, who appeared before magistrates on Wednesday and pleaded not guilty to the charges, will now stand trial before a crown court jury at a cost to the taxpayer of £8,000 a day.

Two female sunbathers prosecuted for flashing their breasts at CCTV camera | the Daily Mail

[Wynonie Harris]

Yes, that is a ridiculous situation, but, it was a harmless piece of tomfoolery. Don't think you can compare it to the missile-throwing incident where an elderly man was subjected to disrespectful and possibly distressing treatment.