llamatron Posted January 12, 2011 Share Posted January 12, 2011 I don't even know what the point is anymore, hence my posts are getting more flippant. If he'd chucked the fire extinguisher at a car on the M1 he would have got away with it, but he chose to do it on television. yep clearly thick as a short thick plank! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
willman Posted January 12, 2011 Share Posted January 12, 2011 Wrong again: http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showthread.php?t=703159 No i 'm not. Your copy and paste statemment !I'm interested in the idea that because he "could" have killed, he should be done for attempted murder. He didn't. Every day motorists drive too fast, drive while speaking on their mobile phone and generally drive their car like an offensive weapon. Unless they hurt someone, they are highly unlikely to be prosecuted for anything more than careless driving. It is almost inconceivable that they would be sent to jail. Therefore, why on earth should this lad go to jail. He did a stupid thing, but he didn't kill anyone and I think he's well aware that he did a stupid thing. It can't possibly be in the public interest to lock him up - he's not a danger to society and he's a be a lot better off in a decent job contributing his taxes to the country. Lets save prison for those who really do murder, rape and maim." Preceeded by you own limited contribution of its absurd or something else on those lines. The only legitimate source does not mention drunk drivers. i.e the newspaper article, the lower comments which i ignored are from humble members of the public and not part of the article. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kaimani Posted January 12, 2011 Share Posted January 12, 2011 what will he say when he gets asked why he didn't finish his A-levels on time and what he did for the next year, is he going to lie through his teeth? Anyone stupid enough to do this should be too stupid to be invited to do a degree. he doesn't have to lie, though, is the thing. even if the uni knows your record they take you. if you want to do youth work for example, a record from your younger days(not sexual) can work for you. people study in jail and get degrees. have you seen students on a night out? by your logic universities should just shut down for the most part if the refuse stupid people education. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
willman Posted January 12, 2011 Share Posted January 12, 2011 The Open University would take him, many criminals get degrees in prison, although not in the 16 months this lad will serve, unless the sentence is reduced. Which kind of adds to the punishment. It adds to his punishment, just like drunk drivers loosing their license for additional years or for them loosing their jobs which adds to their punishment. It's amazing how you appear to be defending this thugs actions or least pitying his sentence yet ignoring the fact that other convicted people suffer more than he sentences you report on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
llamatron Posted January 12, 2011 Share Posted January 12, 2011 he doesn't have to lie, though, is the thing. even if the uni knows your record they take you. if you want to do youth work for example, a record from your younger days(not sexual) can work for you. people study in jail and get degrees. have you seen students on a night out? by your logic universities should just shut down for the most part if the refuse stupid people education. you just said his record was confidential! I am saying they will find out he has a criminal record when they ask what he did in the past couple of years. He isn't likely to get a place over others without records and gaps in their learning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quisquose Posted January 12, 2011 Share Posted January 12, 2011 It adds to his punishment, just like drunk drivers loosing their license for additional years or for them loosing their jobs which adds to their punishment. It's amazing how you appear to be defending this thugs actions or least pitying his sentence yet ignoring the fact that other convicted people suffer more than he sentences you report on. Yes, criminal convictions can be quite inequitable sometimes, but that's life. For somebody else it might just be a fine, but I would lose my professional qualification, and hence my job. No point complaining about it, unless you are Paul Chambers and the conviction was totally nonsense of course. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kaimani Posted January 12, 2011 Share Posted January 12, 2011 you just said his record was confidential! I am saying they will find out he has a criminal record when they ask what he did in the past couple of years. He isn't likely to get a place over others without records and gaps in their learning. oh, i see, you mean when he's talking to other students? yeah, he can say where he was, be the 'cool' kid. no one feels bad. once uni starts no one says 'you got this place instead of my friend'. if the kid has the grades he'll get in. many unis have AA meetings, halls for pregnant students or those that have kids while there. times changed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
esme Posted January 12, 2011 Share Posted January 12, 2011 Mod Note Posts containing insults and accusations have been removed along with all reference to them. The thread will remain locked while I have a look through for any more I may have missed and also to give you a chance to read and digest this message. If, once the thread is reopened, you can't discuss the issue without resorting to insults, accusations or name calling then the thread will be locked permanently. EDIT Ok, I've had a look and removed a few more nonsensical or insulting posts plus any references, I've left several posts that I consider borderline in the interests of debate. I should also point out that I've deleted a few posts where people are selectively quoting just that part of a post which seems offensive to them until the rest of the original post is read, in order to justify a vitriolic response. This is extremely close to deliberate misquoting and if I see any more of this type of post then that is how I shall treat it. The thread is now open again, please bear this note in mind when adding your posts to the debate Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
llamatron Posted January 12, 2011 Share Posted January 12, 2011 oh, i see, you mean when he's talking to other students? yeah, he can say where he was, be the 'cool' kid. no one feels bad. once uni starts no one says 'you got this place instead of my friend'. if the kid has the grades he'll get in. many unis have AA meetings, halls for pregnant students or those that have kids while there. times changed. no I meant by the lecturer interviewing him. It may give him something to write about on his UCAS form if he is applying for certain subjects criminology etc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LordChaverly Posted January 12, 2011 Share Posted January 12, 2011 One possible explanation for the putatively harsh sentence (although I personally don't believe that it was particularly harsh) is that it includes a premium for the context of violent disorder in which the offence took place, This was true to the sentences meted out to persons convicted of football hooliganism and I don't see why the same principle should not apply to protest hooliganism. Indeed, protest hooliganism is now a far bigger threat to public order than football hooliganism. Perhaps the reason why this particular sentence has provoked such an outcry is that many of these protest hooligans are from the middle classes, whereas the football hooligans of yesteryear were predominantly working class and were generally maligned as scum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.