Saturday, 1 September 2007

Pandering and Appeasement Continues.

In the trial of the feral scrotes boys who senselessly attacked and killed a father playing cricket with his son we now see the blatant fecklessness, disconnect and mock-sentiment of the perpetrators and family, while the court, wrongly in my mind, appeases them further:

A jury found the five, now aged between 12 and 14, guilty of manslaughter and violent disorder. They cried as the verdicts were given, clinging to their mothers.

Diddums. Why were their mothers to hand?

However, it can now be revealed that during their trial, during which they were accompanied by a parent in the dock, the five had to be warned about their unruly conduct.

Warned? While on trial. Where is that key? - I wish to throw it away.

Judge Warwick McKinnon was forced to order the parents to keep the boys under control after complaints from court staff about their behaviour.
12 years too late, methinks.

Two of them had been seen hanging out of windows and the behaviour had been causing court staff "concern or worry".

If they want to be hung outside of a window, I am sure a queue will rapidly from to assist them. I am sure someone will also have the presence of mind to bring a rope or two or point out a nearby lamp-post.

On trial were two brothers, aged 12 and 13, and three boys aged 14. Because of their age the judge and barristers did not wear wigs and gowns for the case.

Appeasement. This is just "modernist" pandering. Familiarity breeds contempt. No wonder criminals scoff at the law. What do they think it is - a visit to Margaret Hodge the nit lady?

Only one of the 14-year-olds gave evidence at the trial, admitting that he spat at Mr Norton and that it was "stupid", "revolting" and "appalling".

Yeh yeh yeh. Bit late now, sonny jim.

He said he was only throwing stones to try to knock over stumps and wreck the cricket game, for a "bit of fun".
If anyone believes that, I have some tempting shares in a jelly mine, if you are interested - we have just struck a seam of raspberry.

The boys had ended up at the leisure centre, he said, because there was "nothing else to do".

In the words of the Great Bard: bullshit! "Nothing to do" is not an excuse. Bored people are bored because they are boring, not because there is "nothing to do". Being bored is no excuse for violence, intimidation or criminality.

Judge Warwick McKinnon was forced to apply new bail conditions in the middle of the trial after their antics were reported to him by worried staff.

He told the court: "It has been brought to my attention that the defendants are wandering around unaccompanied and conducting themselves in the same way they have been all their misrerable lives such a way that staff members are worried that they may well get up to mischief."

And their parents were supposed to be there...oh, forgot, feral yoof. Parents in body, but not spirit, maybe.

He ordered that they should be accompanied by an appropriate adult or solicitor while in the precincts of the court.

How about being raised by an appropriate adult?

During the trial, one of the scrotes 14-year-olds had fallen asleep in the dock after a long night on his PS3.

Nicholas Valios QC, defending the youngest boy, had urged the jury not to be swayed by the genuine public concern over gang culture. He preposterously claimed the boys were not a "gang of anti-social youths", as he said the prosecution had sought to portray them but a gang of anti-social feral scumbags.

"Every day one has read something about gangs of people killing innocent others, people kicked or knifed to death or shot dead by youths who have been terrorising estates. That really isn't this case," Mr Valios said.
No, they used rocks instead.

The five were remanded on bail pending being let off for sentencing on October 19.

I want to know how much Taxpayers money the State has thrown at and continues to throw at the so-called parents.

5 comments:

Mark Wadsworth said...

Oh it is all so depressing.

Even Phil A hasn't shown up for a while.

Henry North London said...

How many of your readers want to bet that the parents were in their twenties? and barely able to read and write?

Shocking the way feral society is but the thing is you cant say anything to these teenagers now

I told off a couple of 17 year olds for driving through a red light near where I live whilst I was crossing the road any closer and i'd have been tossed up in the air like a rag doll.

My reward? a broken jaw and cheekbone and permanent crooked smile.

The perp was caught three weeks later by a police officer and then let go on Police bail.

Guess what he's never been seen since.

It sickens me.

They deserve to have them selves locked up for life but that these days for 12 year olds means ten years of being supervised and re educated and then being given vast new identities and being supported by the taxpayer because they'll be vulnerable to attack by the concerned general public for committing such a heinous crime in the first place.

Shucks I could ramble on for ever maybe I should do a post on my blog for it too

Mark Wadsworth said...

Henry, that's awful.

I once crossed a road in rather devil-may-care fashion and the car screeched to a halt and a very Angry Black Man ran after me and punched me in the face.

There was a bit of bruising to the nose but no lasting damage. Did I report it? Of course I f***ing didn't, what's the point?

Roger Thornhill said...

Both of you, that is awful, physically and psychologically.

It has many dimensions, but lack of responsibility for one's actions and consequences thereof is at the root, I feel.

In the US, even the mobsters had a term "don't make a Federal Case of it", as to do so meant dogged pursuit and harsh penalties, used to calm people down, especially to remind them not to commit murder in the heat of it.

"Don't make a 200 hour Community Service Order out of it" does not have quite the same ring...

Phil A said...

Mark - just when you thought it was safe...

You are right it is so depressing it makes one seriously consider having a couple of glasses of wine and thus be branded a problem drinker by the health fascists.

Why are the ‘great and the good’ (clueless political elite to you and me) fine at being authoritarian when it is unwarranted and un wanted – but fail to be even slightly authoritarian when it might conceivably be of some use?