UK Sentancing - can anyone explain?

Gizmodo

I don't understand the sentances that the courts are giving out these days. For example:

Chris Kirkland attack: Aaron Cawley jailed for pitch assault
A man runs on a football pitch and physically assults the goalkeeper - jailed for 16 weeks (about 4 months) and banned from football matches for 6 years. "The court heard Cawley had been drinking heavily and had already breached two previous banning orders."

Boat Race protester Trenton Oldfield jailed
A man swims in the river when the boat race is on, no one is hurt - jailed for 6 months and has to pay £750 costs.

What am I missing?

capt_slog

You're missing the fact that the fella who upset THE Boat Race is an utter cad and a bounder don'tcha know.

Simmotino

I would guess it relates to the potential for damage/harm to others *shrug*.

The pillock in the river could have caused absolute chaos given the number of boats/people in the immediate vicinity, all on water with the potential for serious injury.

The bell end at the football gave a bloke a girlie slap in the face. You can ignore the fact Kirkland went down like a sack of the proverbial, it was nothing more than a push.

I'm not saying that's why, but it's the only logic I can attribute to one being worth more of a punishment than the other.

sfichele

By the same "logic", the bell end at the football match could have caused a pitch invasion and it was also an unprovoked *assault* - doesn't that massively outweigh the bell end at the boat race which caused nothing more than disruption

MaxwellBygraves

Simply because Oldfield upset the apple cart before the Olympics.

Simmotino

sfichele wrote:

By the same "logic", the bell end at the football match could have caused a pitch invasion and it was also an unprovoked *assault* - doesn't that massively outweigh the bell end at the boat race which caused nothing more than disruption

You may be right. It was just a theory.

TheStone

Both are way over the top. You'll see much worse on any Friday/Saturday night out.

bompington

I think this makes it totally clear why he deserves a far worse sentence - probably to be laughed at and ignored. "Privately educated with an MSc in contemporary urbanism from the London School of Economics" indeed.
I would guess that his strategy was actually to get the worst sentence he could, as it would suit his mission.

I often feel like I can, in fact, find a grain of sympathy with the aims of some of these protesters, or at least understanding that they have a right to protest. But when I compare them with people who stand up against real oppressive regimes, they really do look like self-indulgent cowards. Can you imagine Oldfield doing this for example?

Phil Fouracre

Now that takes real balls!!!

tim_wand

One has attacked the so called Social and Political uber class of the Oxbridge educated on their annual gala day.

The other has given some lanky bloke a slap during a ruffians game between two Northern teams in a working class sport.

Maybe Andrew Mitchell should have got his friends in the Police Force to deal with the Pleb, they d have both got life.

Seriously though I think the potential for further disruption and violence was greater during the Football match than the Boat Race, I think theres a valid point in the fact that Fenton made a mockery of security at a major London "Sporting Event" pre olympics and post riots and therefore made the Powers at be look incompetent.

G4S would have never have let that happen

BelgianBeerGeek

One sport is a national institution adored by millions and has massive media coverage. If the fixture was abandoned, there would be huge consternation and many poeple would be very upset.

And the other is football.

And the judge probably went to Oxbridge*. Take that, class warrior!
*I have not checked if the judge did. But they are mainly on the side of those who do.

pinno

Simmotino wrote:

The bell end at the football gave a bloke a girlie slap in the face. You can ignore the fact Kirkland went down like a sack of the proverbial, it was nothing more than a push.

Yep, travesty. Kirkland should have been sent off for being a soft basket and not sinking the head into the twunt.

Sometime ago just after those that were caught for the Brinks Matt robbery in Chertsey, the Headline on the Scum said "22 years for Brinks Matt Robbery". Inside of the the next page with about 2 and half column inches: "Triple rapist gets 6 years"!

Flexisurfer

I don't think it was the first offence for the boat race chap, he may well have been convicted for some other outstanding offences.

2Phat4Rapha

The bell end at the football probably couldn't even spell sentence.

Wunnunda

The Boat Race eejit got hammered because he made it crystal clear throughout his trial that he felt no remorse or regret at what he had done. In fact quite the opposite he was trying to turn himself into a martyr for his spurious cause and made it clear he'd do it again if he had a chance. Judges don't like that.
The LUFC 'fan' (from CHELTENHAM of all places ???) was bang to rights and pleaded guilty as fast as possible. Would have got a lot less I suspect if it wsn't for his 'previous'.

CiB

pinarello001 wrote:

Simmotino wrote:

The bell end at the football gave a bloke a girlie slap in the face. You can ignore the fact Kirkland went down like a sack of the proverbial, it was nothing more than a push.

Yep, travesty. Kirkland should have been sent off for being a soft basket and not sinking the head into the twunt.

I had this view until a discussion in the pub the other night. What were CK's realistic options? Go down like the proverbial? Looks a bit soppy but it ends the action (unless matey boy lays into him feet first). Or he can stand there, but that's inviting a follow-up. Not good. He can fight back, which instantly renders him liable to an assault charge as well, losing him whatever moral high-ground footballers might claim to occupy these days. In short, going down was the least worst option in that situation, even if it did make him look a prat.

Frank the tank

We all know that sentencing is a "law unto itself". I can't remember the actual length of time but someone who stole a bottle of water in the riots got sent down for several months, people have committed serious attacks against people and never got to within a mile of a prison sentence.

siamon

Welcome to Britain.

If you want to guarantee yourself a 5yr+ stretch then you need to do something really dreadful like credit card fraud, anything to do with money and you are shafted.

Ironically enough, I have just returned from court on some jumped up accusation of kidnap and false imprisonment. The Judge (who has previous with me) was a complete twonk, didn't seem to care that my actions were completely reasonable and 100% in line with the values of our society (or my perception of them!) Referred for trial in 9 weeks.

The point that the seriousness of the crime and sentences are completely unrelated is indisputable by anyone with a shred of common sense. In my view the two examples above, football thug boy has got off VERY lightly. What he did could have got seriously ugly.

Boat race man should maybe have got away with voluntary work. Did he scare anyone or cause distress? No. He made some (probably) drug fuelled pro atheletes angry! And disrupted a TV schedule. So what?

People are taking up prison space right now for not paying their TV licence, so are council tax dodgers! Yet the court could make an attachment of earnings order? Whilst apparently prisons are too full for teens who stab each other! Wonder why!

Probably the most sickening fact of all is that fact that paedophiles are quite often just FINED! Which is why they should to be taken to a quiet place by a concerned citizen (only 1 mind) and "morally re-aligned" to the values of our society (or kidnapped and falsely imprisoned as the courts courts would call it).

Frank the tank

bompington wrote:

I think this makes it totally clear why he deserves a far worse sentence - probably to be laughed at and ignored. "Privately educated with an MSc in contemporary urbanism from the London School of Economics" indeed.
I would guess that his strategy was actually to get the worst sentence he could, as it would suit his mission.

I often feel like I can, in fact, find a grain of sympathy with the aims of some of these protesters, or at least understanding that they have a right to protest. But when I compare them with people who stand up against real oppressive regimes, they really do look like self-indulgent cowards. Can you imagine Oldfield doing this for example?

I remember seeing that on tv and thinking now there is a BRAVE MAN. I didn't see the boat race protester but brave is not a word that would have sprang readily to mind.

Gizmodo

siamon wrote:

Welcome to Britain.

If you want to guarantee yourself a 5yr+ stretch then you need to do something really dreadful like credit card fraud, anything to do with money and you are shafted.

Ironically enough, I have just returned from court on some jumped up accusation of kidnap and false imprisonment. The Judge (who has previous with me) was a complete twonk, didn't seem to care that my actions were completely reasonable and 100% in line with the values of our society (or my perception of them!) Referred for trial in 9 weeks.

The point that the seriousness of the crime and sentences are completely unrelated is indisputable by anyone with a shred of common sense. In my view the two examples above, football thug boy has got off VERY lightly. What he did could have got seriously ugly.

Boat race man should maybe have got away with voluntary work. Did he scare anyone or cause distress? No. He made some (probably) drug fuelled pro atheletes angry! And disrupted a TV schedule. So what?

People are taking up prison space right now for not paying their TV licence, so are council tax dodgers! Yet the court could make an attachment of earnings order? Whilst apparently prisons are too full for teens who stab each other! Wonder why!

Probably the most sickening fact of all is that fact that paedophiles are quite often just FINED! Which is why they should to be taken to a quiet place by a concerned citizen (only 1 mind) and "morally re-aligned" to the values of our society (or kidnapped and falsely imprisoned as the courts courts would call it).

Obviously there is a lot more to your story than we can/want to go into here, but no matter how much I disagree with sentencing, I can't condone anyone trying to "morally re-align" someone. I think the judge may have been right in your case, it sounds like having all the facts presented to a jury of your peers is the way to go. I hope that you convince them that your actions were legal. I wish you the best of luck.

pinno

Wunnunda wrote:

The LUFC 'fan' (from CHELTENHAM of all places ???) /quote]

Lived in 'Naam, Cheltenham for 7 years. When I first got there, someone told me thatit was a Jeckyl and Hyde place. I asked why and he stated that in the day time it was all beautiful and serene but at night there was a pretty bad element. The Hesters way housing scheme area on the way out of 'Naam was a large and pretty downtrodden place. Lived as a student there for a year, escaped alive.
Witnessed quite a number of fights when the pubs spilled out.

rick_chasey

Bikeradar spelling. What happened?

pinno

Rick Chasey wrote:

Bikeradar spelling. What happened?

Thats right Rick - just kill the thread why don't you ?

I am serving you a disciplinary:

Don't do it again