Happy slappers let off (corrected version)
Discussion
wishy-washy CPSJagLover said:Tie them to a tree and throw rotten vegetables/eggs/dog crap at them - the humiliation of the stocks might just be deterrant enough.
If he had been burnt it would be another matter, but as far as I can see the only offence that has been committed is tying him to a tree and putting a monkey mask on him. Given that this was their first offence what would you like the punishment to be?-life imprisonment
Einion Yrth said:
If he had been burnt it would be another matter, but as far as I can see the only offence that has been committed is tying him to a tree and putting a monkey mask on him. Given that this was their first offence what would you like the punishment to be?-life imprisonment
Tie them to a tree and throw rotten vegetables/eggs/dog crap at them - the humiliation of the stocks might just be deterrant enough.
Or just tie them to a tree, yank their pants down, and walk away leaving them there. With any luck, they'll get done by BiB for indecent exposure
JagLover said:
If he had been burnt it would be another matter, but as far as I can see the only offence that has been committed is tying him to a tree and putting a monkey mask on him. Given that this was their first offence what would you like the punishment to be?-life imprisonment
So if I pulled a gun on someone pulled the trigger five times and missed with every bullet, would it be ok to let me off as its my first offence.
I garantee if this kid decided to get his own back (I know I would) then he will be the one in the docks.
Personally id pick them off one by one dark allyway and a baseball bat.
And what do you propose if the mask had melted to his face cutting off his air supply
cotty said:
So if I pulled a gun on someone pulled the trigger five times and missed with every bullet, would it be ok to let me off as its my first offence.
They weren't firing a gun at him, they set a fire, which, according to the article, did him no harm and as far as anyone knows was never intended to do him any harm.
JagLover said:
If he had been burnt it would be another matter, but as far as I can see the only offence that has been committed is tying him to a tree and putting a monkey mask on him. Given that this was their first offence what would you like the punishment to be?-life imprisonment
Funny you should say that.
The offence they have committed is arson.
The maximum sentence for arson? Life.
JagLover said:
cotty said:
So if I pulled a gun on someone pulled the trigger five times and missed with every bullet, would it be ok to let me off as its my first offence.
They weren't firing a gun at him, they set a fire, which, according to the article, did him no harm and as far as anyone knows was never intended to do him any harm.
I have never set fire to anyone with the intention of not doing harm. What were their intentions if it wasnt to cause harm.
>> Edited by cotty on Wednesday 7th September 10:45
"because of their previous good character we thought it was unfair to single them out and pursue the prosecution"
I'm sure that there are millions/billions of people with good character, but we can't let them off when they do something wrong.
"Oh, you gave £50 to charity last year? Well, we won't worry about the murder you just admitted to, you seem like a prefectly nice chap and you probably won't do it again"
I'm sure that there are millions/billions of people with good character, but we can't let them off when they do something wrong.
"Oh, you gave £50 to charity last year? Well, we won't worry about the murder you just admitted to, you seem like a prefectly nice chap and you probably won't do it again"
forever_driving said:Indeed. I don't recall being let off my first speeding ticket because I was "of previously good character".
"because of their previous good character we thought it was unfair to single them out and pursue the prosecution"
I'm sure that there are millions/billions of people with good character, but we can't let them off when they do something wrong.
JagLover said:
cotty said:
I have never set fire to anyone with the intention of not doing harm. What were their intentions if it wasnt to cause harm.
They didn't set fire to him, but to the tree he was tied too.
Is that like not setting fire to witches, but the pile of wood they are standing on? Or setting fire to a house with people inside it and locking all the doors, but not setting fire to the people themselves?
Admittedly it isn't clear which part of the tree they set on fire, but if he could feel heat on his shoulder then it is reasonably foreseeable that the fire would eventually do him harm, if not kill him.
>> Edited by Nevin on Wednesday 7th September 11:05
JagLover.
"They didnt set fire to him, they set fire to the tree he was tied to". So to provide a further analogy, if someone was to set fire to your house & you were inside & managed to escape, you wouldnt want the perpetrators subject to Trial for at least arson & perhaps even being reckless as to whether your life was endangered ?
Come on fella. They set fire to the tree only because he was attached to it & by virtue of the fact they then proceeded to video it on their mobile phones, it was done purely for the purposes of entertainment.
At the very least the individuals who did admit their guilt should have been subject to Criminal proceedings & perhaps if found guilty (& they have admitted this) been subject to a period of detention in a Young Offenders Institution. As for the others, is it not beyond the realms of possibility that the video evidence could have implicated them also ?
Sadly, yet another example of the CPS (& NOT the Police) being seen to be soft on crime.
"They didnt set fire to him, they set fire to the tree he was tied to". So to provide a further analogy, if someone was to set fire to your house & you were inside & managed to escape, you wouldnt want the perpetrators subject to Trial for at least arson & perhaps even being reckless as to whether your life was endangered ?
Come on fella. They set fire to the tree only because he was attached to it & by virtue of the fact they then proceeded to video it on their mobile phones, it was done purely for the purposes of entertainment.
At the very least the individuals who did admit their guilt should have been subject to Criminal proceedings & perhaps if found guilty (& they have admitted this) been subject to a period of detention in a Young Offenders Institution. As for the others, is it not beyond the realms of possibility that the video evidence could have implicated them also ?
Sadly, yet another example of the CPS (& NOT the Police) being seen to be soft on crime.
Gassing Station | The Pie & Piston Archive | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff