Statue Prosecution

This Forum is the main messageboard to discuss all things Claret and Blue and beyond
Blackrod
Posts: 5114
Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2016 12:41 pm
Been Liked: 1348 times
Has Liked: 608 times

Statue Prosecution

Post by Blackrod » Mon Jun 15, 2020 4:40 pm

For the urinating. The idiot has got 14 days. His solicitor has apparently said he is remorseful and had drunk 16 pints. He also said he had mental health issues. Really ?? I have a feeling this is going to be a standard statement now to try and minimise the sentence as magistrates/ judges will be keen to tiptoe around anything involving ‘mental health’. Not sure it is helpful applying this term so liberally as is it not helping genuine cases. This could be a genuine case but I’m seeing it used more and more as a form of defence in court cases.

KateR
Posts: 4137
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2017 1:46 pm
Been Liked: 1018 times
Has Liked: 6156 times

Re: Statue Prosecution

Post by KateR » Mon Jun 15, 2020 4:47 pm

Blackrod wrote:
Mon Jun 15, 2020 4:40 pm
For the urinating. The idiot has got 14 days. His solicitor has apparently said he is remorseful and had drunk 16 pints. He also said he had mental health issues. Really ?? I have a feeling this is going to be a standard statement now to try and minimise the sentence as magistrates/ judges will be keen to tiptoe around anything involving ‘mental health’. Not sure it is helpful applying this term so liberally as is it not helping genuine cases. This could be a genuine case but I’m seeing it used more and more as a form of defence in court cases.
to be expected, yet a prosecution/record and if he really is in prison for 14 days can be a life changing episode for many plus the added cost of the solicitor, loss of wages etc. is all part of the punishment. I would say anyone doing this sort of behavior had a mental health episode and for many they would not normally do this kind of thing but may even say how stupid it was. I agree we should not undermine real mental health issues.

Rileybobs
Posts: 16681
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 4:37 pm
Been Liked: 6891 times
Has Liked: 1471 times
Location: Leeds

Re: Statue Prosecution

Post by Rileybobs » Mon Jun 15, 2020 4:58 pm

Whether he has mental health issues or not a 14 day prison sentence for urinating in public seems extremely harsh.

kentonclaret
Posts: 6434
Joined: Sun Jan 31, 2016 4:06 pm
Been Liked: 969 times
Has Liked: 204 times

Re: Statue Prosecution

Post by kentonclaret » Mon Jun 15, 2020 5:04 pm

Particularly harsh given the fact that public toilet facilities across London have been closed since the pandemic started.

I wonder where the other several thousand people urinated?
This user liked this post: Wile E Coyote

Stanbill05
Posts: 550
Joined: Mon Feb 24, 2020 5:48 pm
Been Liked: 140 times
Has Liked: 54 times

Re: Statue Prosecution

Post by Stanbill05 » Mon Jun 15, 2020 5:06 pm

He might have been better ripping it up and chucking it in the Thames. Not massively sympathetic though.

tiger76
Posts: 25697
Joined: Sat Jun 24, 2017 9:43 pm
Been Liked: 4644 times
Has Liked: 9849 times
Location: Glasgow

Re: Statue Prosecution

Post by tiger76 » Mon Jun 15, 2020 5:09 pm

He didn't get convicted for urinating, he got convicted for outraging public decency which he plead guilty to.

I take your point about the public facilities being closed, but that's precisely because people aren't supposed to be massing in large groups to protest.
These 2 users liked this post: paulatky Blackrod

Burnley Ace
Posts: 3525
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 6:03 pm
Been Liked: 651 times
Has Liked: 2879 times

Re: Statue Prosecution

Post by Burnley Ace » Mon Jun 15, 2020 5:10 pm

Blackrod wrote:
Mon Jun 15, 2020 4:40 pm
This could be a genuine case but I’m seeing it used more and more as a form of defence in court cases.
He pleaded guilty (at the first opportunity) to outraging public decency, so it wasn’t a defence.

kentonclaret
Posts: 6434
Joined: Sun Jan 31, 2016 4:06 pm
Been Liked: 969 times
Has Liked: 204 times

Re: Statue Prosecution

Post by kentonclaret » Mon Jun 15, 2020 5:12 pm

Public toilet facilities across London being closed has nothing to do with mass gatherings, they have been closed on TFL, in supermarkets and shopping centres since the Covid19 outbreak.

KateR
Posts: 4137
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2017 1:46 pm
Been Liked: 1018 times
Has Liked: 6156 times

Re: Statue Prosecution

Post by KateR » Mon Jun 15, 2020 5:14 pm

The court was told that in terms of sentencing precedents the only comparable recent case involved a woman called Kelly Martin who was jailed for seven months for deliberately urinating on a public war memorial in 2016.

He was told he would only serve half the sentence if good behavior was a factor.

Social media a very real factor also I believe, I would not presume to say what is appropriate but enforced community service in these types of cases is always something I feel should be offered as an alternative to a prison conviction.

gtclaret
Posts: 1344
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 9:45 am
Been Liked: 338 times
Has Liked: 118 times

Re: Statue Prosecution

Post by gtclaret » Mon Jun 15, 2020 5:15 pm

kentonclaret wrote:
Mon Jun 15, 2020 5:04 pm
Particularly harsh given the fact that public toilet facilities across London have been closed since the pandemic started.

I wonder where the other several thousand people urinated?
And the reason they are closed is to stop the illegal gathering of people in order to prevent the spread of the virus. He like the others have no respect for anyone else, they don't care who they infect. How did he get so much alcohol if the pubs are shut. He like the others shouldn't have been there, the sentence was correct
This user liked this post: tiger76

paulatky
Posts: 1441
Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2016 10:25 am
Been Liked: 220 times
Has Liked: 772 times

Re: Statue Prosecution

Post by paulatky » Mon Jun 15, 2020 5:15 pm

Burnley Ace wrote:
Mon Jun 15, 2020 5:10 pm
He pleaded guilty (at the first opportunity) to outraging public decency, so it wasn’t a defence.

More a mitigating reason.

Why do we allow being drunk,or having drunk 16 pints, to be a mitigating circumstance.

In some countries admitting being drunk would result in the punishment being doubled.

Rileybobs
Posts: 16681
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 4:37 pm
Been Liked: 6891 times
Has Liked: 1471 times
Location: Leeds

Re: Statue Prosecution

Post by Rileybobs » Mon Jun 15, 2020 5:17 pm

gtclaret wrote:
Mon Jun 15, 2020 5:15 pm
And the reason they are closed is to stop the illegal gathering of people in order to prevent the spread of the virus. He like the others have no respect for anyone else, they don't care who they infect. How did he get so much alcohol if the pubs are shut. He like the others shouldn't have been there, the sentence was correct
Public toilets aren’t closed to stop the illegal gathering of people. And I presume he got the alcohol from a shop.

kentonclaret
Posts: 6434
Joined: Sun Jan 31, 2016 4:06 pm
Been Liked: 969 times
Has Liked: 204 times

Re: Statue Prosecution

Post by kentonclaret » Mon Jun 15, 2020 5:20 pm

Those commenting that public toilet facilities are closed simply to stop mass gatherings are wrong, they have been closed since the start of the Covid19 pandemic.

The Guardian actually reported on it last week and the distress being caused to elderly people leaving home dehydrated for fear of not being able to find a public toilet open. The article(s) also reported that many parks and open spaces were now pervaded with the stench of urine and that it was developing into a Public Health issue.

KateR
Posts: 4137
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2017 1:46 pm
Been Liked: 1018 times
Has Liked: 6156 times

Re: Statue Prosecution

Post by KateR » Mon Jun 15, 2020 5:20 pm

Burnley Ace wrote:
Mon Jun 15, 2020 5:10 pm
He pleaded guilty (at the first opportunity) to outraging public decency, so it wasn’t a defence.
it's a defence for leniency often used by legal counsel throughout the world.

The world and there dog's knew there would be no toilets, how many protesters were arrested for the same offence, they did they all urinate somewhere in public, am sure many did but didn't make it to social media and didn't slip through a fence or do it near a memorial. However I am sure the vast majority understood the issue and acted accordingly, as opposed to those drinking 16 pints, he admitted a problem with alcohol also.

Devils_Advocate
Posts: 12342
Joined: Sun Oct 30, 2016 2:43 pm
Been Liked: 5201 times
Has Liked: 920 times

Re: Statue Prosecution

Post by Devils_Advocate » Mon Jun 15, 2020 5:24 pm

when you've got to go you've got to go
Image

randomclaret2
Posts: 6880
Joined: Mon Mar 07, 2016 5:04 pm
Been Liked: 2742 times
Has Liked: 4314 times

Re: Statue Prosecution

Post by randomclaret2 » Mon Jun 15, 2020 5:29 pm

When are the fines for breaking lockdown regulations being issued?

Alanstevensonsgloves
Posts: 1264
Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2016 12:40 am
Been Liked: 342 times
Has Liked: 399 times
Location: From Accy, Exiled in Surrey

Re: Statue Prosecution

Post by Alanstevensonsgloves » Mon Jun 15, 2020 5:49 pm

Whilst I am not condoning peeing in public, I actually think the guy was unlucky. I'd suggest he randomly chose a spot to pee, rather than purposely choosing the PC's memorial plaque. If you look at the picture he is peeing in to the greenery at the side of it, not actually on it.

It's a shame burglars and car thieves don't get locked up for their first offence as well.
Last edited by Alanstevensonsgloves on Mon Jun 15, 2020 5:51 pm, edited 1 time in total.
These 2 users liked this post: Stayingup lesxdp

Blackrod
Posts: 5114
Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2016 12:41 pm
Been Liked: 1348 times
Has Liked: 608 times

Re: Statue Prosecution

Post by Blackrod » Mon Jun 15, 2020 5:57 pm

The fact is was on the brave PCs memorial which is still fresh in the mind, along with a mass gathering at an inappropriate time has probably meant a harsher punishment. For vandalism I would expect to see a sentence. If it was just urinating in public or near an old monument I would normally favour community service such as cleaning monuments and removing graffiti.

pushpinpussy
Posts: 2109
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 7:57 am
Been Liked: 891 times
Has Liked: 134 times

Re: Statue Prosecution

Post by pushpinpussy » Mon Jun 15, 2020 5:57 pm

KateR wrote:
Mon Jun 15, 2020 5:20 pm
it's a defence for leniency often used by legal counsel throughout the world.

The world and there dog's knew there would be no toilets, how many protesters were arrested for the same offence, they did they all urinate somewhere in public, am sure many did but didn't make it to social media and didn't slip through a fence or do it near a memorial. However I am sure the vast majority understood the issue and acted accordingly, as opposed to those drinking 16 pints, he admitted a problem with alcohol also.
You need to start getting your facts right. pleading guilty at the very first opportunity (usually in court but even better at the police station in interview) allows the solicitor to ask the court to give the defendant full credit. It also shows remorse as its been admitted early therefore preventing a trial. Its mitigation (not a defence that is totally different) and usually as in this case the best mitigation a defendant can have. In addition a defendant is allowed up to 30 percent credit from his sentence for admitting the allegation early.

GodIsADeeJay81
Posts: 14562
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2018 9:55 am
Been Liked: 3435 times
Has Liked: 6339 times

Re: Statue Prosecution

Post by GodIsADeeJay81 » Mon Jun 15, 2020 5:58 pm

Ah the old drank 16 pints with a mental health condition excuse.

He's been punished, probably got harsher treatment than he deserved but he spent the day drinking and travelling so he could cause aggro and they had to make an example out of someone, dibs he was it.

People can bleat about it all they want, doesn't detract from the fact he went out to behave like a prat.

Blackrod
Posts: 5114
Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2016 12:41 pm
Been Liked: 1348 times
Has Liked: 608 times

Re: Statue Prosecution

Post by Blackrod » Mon Jun 15, 2020 5:58 pm

The main point is though he was just p*ssed, was desperate and probably quite thick. I doubt mental health has much to do with this case.

Billy Balfour
Posts: 3979
Joined: Mon May 28, 2018 3:00 pm
Been Liked: 1857 times
Has Liked: 652 times

Re: Statue Prosecution

Post by Billy Balfour » Mon Jun 15, 2020 5:59 pm

At least he'll be off the beers and burgers for a couple of weeks. Might do him some good.

aggi
Posts: 8762
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 11:31 am
Been Liked: 2109 times

Re: Statue Prosecution

Post by aggi » Mon Jun 15, 2020 6:06 pm

He's clearly a bit of a dickhead, Banks said he didn't know what the memorial was for, he had drunk 16 pints on an all-night bender before protests & had attended to "defend statues" but wasn't sure which ones but he's probably realised that now and I'm not convinced that sending him to prison is going to solve that.

Something that benefited the community would, in my opinion, be a more fitting resolution than a straightforward punishment.
This user liked this post: KateR

Bfcboyo
Posts: 1965
Joined: Mon Apr 17, 2017 8:30 pm
Been Liked: 441 times
Has Liked: 355 times

Re: Statue Prosecution

Post by Bfcboyo » Mon Jun 15, 2020 6:08 pm

Wonder if you can get done for going in sinks?

aggi
Posts: 8762
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 11:31 am
Been Liked: 2109 times

Re: Statue Prosecution

Post by aggi » Mon Jun 15, 2020 6:08 pm

randomclaret2 wrote:
Mon Jun 15, 2020 5:29 pm
When are the fines for breaking lockdown regulations being issued?
I'm pretty sure the official policy is not to issue them retrospectively. It was in the news a few weeks ago.

KateR
Posts: 4137
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2017 1:46 pm
Been Liked: 1018 times
Has Liked: 6156 times

Re: Statue Prosecution

Post by KateR » Mon Jun 15, 2020 6:12 pm

pushpinpussy wrote:
Mon Jun 15, 2020 5:57 pm
You need to start getting your facts right. pleading guilty at the very first opportunity (usually in court but even better at the police station in interview) allows the solicitor to ask the court to give the defendant full credit. It also shows remorse as its been admitted early therefore preventing a trial. Its mitigation (not a defence that is totally different) and usually as in this case the best mitigation a defendant can have. In addition a defendant is allowed up to 30 percent credit from his sentence for admitting the allegation early.
Argumentative M'Lord :) I believe my facts are 100% right, mental illness is a defence and used as mitigating circumstances. I never mentioned anything to do with pleading guilty early, whether at a station, in court or to his parents, allowing a court to make any type of consideration and therefore the rest of your para is null and void as evidence and should therefore be dismissed, which I have. :)

Bordeauxclaret
Posts: 10272
Joined: Mon Jan 25, 2016 10:36 pm
Been Liked: 3327 times
Has Liked: 1938 times

Re: Statue Prosecution

Post by Bordeauxclaret » Mon Jun 15, 2020 6:14 pm

So the “football lads”, as I keep seeing them refereed to, went to London to defend the statues and monuments which were damaged last week.

Who’s defending them from these “football lads” next week? The Crown Bowls Boys?

Burnley Ace
Posts: 3525
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 6:03 pm
Been Liked: 651 times
Has Liked: 2879 times

Re: Statue Prosecution

Post by Burnley Ace » Mon Jun 15, 2020 6:19 pm

paulatky wrote:
Mon Jun 15, 2020 5:15 pm
More a mitigating reason.

Why do we allow being drunk,or having drunk 16 pints, to be a mitigating circumstance.

In some countries admitting being drunk would result in the punishment being doubled.
It’s not mitigation either the sentence was not reduced because he was drunk. It’s an explanation as to one of the reasons he acted as he did.

Burnley Ace
Posts: 3525
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 6:03 pm
Been Liked: 651 times
Has Liked: 2879 times

Re: Statue Prosecution

Post by Burnley Ace » Mon Jun 15, 2020 6:26 pm

KateR wrote:
Mon Jun 15, 2020 5:20 pm
it's a defence for leniency often used by legal counsel throughout the world.

The world and there dog's knew there would be no toilets, how many protesters were arrested for the same offence, they did they all urinate somewhere in public, am sure many did but didn't make it to social media and didn't slip through a fence or do it near a memorial. However I am sure the vast majority understood the issue and acted accordingly, as opposed to those drinking 16 pints, he admitted a problem with alcohol also.
You can’t have a defence for leniency! You either have a defence, in which case you plead not guilty, or you don’t have a defence, in which case you plead guilty. He didn’t have a defence hence he entered a guilty plea.

He did not plead guilty to urinating in public he was charged with outraging public decency.

The fact he had drunk so much was used as an explanation, it’s barely even mitigation as it’s self induced intoxication.

Billy Balfour
Posts: 3979
Joined: Mon May 28, 2018 3:00 pm
Been Liked: 1857 times
Has Liked: 652 times

Re: Statue Prosecution

Post by Billy Balfour » Mon Jun 15, 2020 6:26 pm

He was lucky to have only been charged with one offence. Shorts with white trainers and white socks? Could quite easily have got a further 2 weeks.
These 2 users liked this post: KateR MrTopTier

claret59
Posts: 352
Joined: Mon Jul 31, 2017 8:10 pm
Been Liked: 138 times

Re: Statue Prosecution

Post by claret59 » Mon Jun 15, 2020 6:33 pm

I think this sentence is disproportionate. It is highly unusual to go to prison for a first offence ( we are not told if he had any previous convictions but assume not or we would know of it.) It seems bizarre that a group of people can damage a statue in full view of the police ( who were under instructions not to intervene ) and nothing happens to any of them by way of arrest / prison etc.
This chap did give himself in and one wonders would he have been caught if he had not done so. His actions were unsavoury but no lasting damage.
Wreck statutes, damage them, destroy them and that is apparently OK. Urinating in the street gets 14 days in prison.

FCBurnley
Posts: 9695
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 3:56 pm
Been Liked: 1967 times
Has Liked: 1132 times

Re: Statue Prosecution

Post by FCBurnley » Mon Jun 15, 2020 6:34 pm

Rileybobs wrote:
Mon Jun 15, 2020 4:58 pm
Whether he has mental health issues or not a 14 day prison sentence for urinating in public seems extremely harsh.
However if he had urinated through your letter box ?

KateR
Posts: 4137
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2017 1:46 pm
Been Liked: 1018 times
Has Liked: 6156 times

Re: Statue Prosecution

Post by KateR » Mon Jun 15, 2020 6:42 pm

Burnley Ace wrote:
Mon Jun 15, 2020 6:26 pm
You can’t have a defence for leniency! You either have a defence, in which case you plead not guilty, or you don’t have a defence, in which case you plead guilty. He didn’t have a defence hence he entered a guilty plea.

He did not plead guilty to urinating in public he was charged with outraging public decency.

The fact he had drunk so much was used as an explanation, it’s barely even mitigation as it’s self induced intoxication.
drunk, self induced intoxication, where have I made these points anywhere, mental illness, that's what we, well I certainly was talking about when I said, it's been used as a defence

there seems to be very little point discussing anything if you don't have the basic understanding of what others are saying. You can plead guilty to anything and the you can introduce extenuating circumstances around the incident regrading why you did something. Those extenuating circumstances go to the court in terms of the sentencing and hoping to provide a factor/reason to lessen the actual sentence before it is pronounced, in this particular case you have no idea if the final outcome might have been in months, without his solicitor presenting to the court. Of course you can always write in and make your theories know and let the world known that this case should have been dropped because his solicitor has not got a clue, is of such incompetence and should never have brought this before the court. Or maybe he was working by the minute and wanted to talk for the sake of running his bill up. Also you can argue it is a waste of time and effort him saying sorry I didn't mean it just to add to the point because that might also have zero impact of the courts decision.

We all I think know what he was charged with, it does not change the fact that had he not been urinating he would not have been charged at all for this offence.

Rileybobs
Posts: 16681
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 4:37 pm
Been Liked: 6891 times
Has Liked: 1471 times
Location: Leeds

Re: Statue Prosecution

Post by Rileybobs » Mon Jun 15, 2020 7:00 pm

FCBurnley wrote:
Mon Jun 15, 2020 6:34 pm
However if he had urinated through your letter box ?
I don’t understand?

pushpinpussy
Posts: 2109
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 7:57 am
Been Liked: 891 times
Has Liked: 134 times

Re: Statue Prosecution

Post by pushpinpussy » Mon Jun 15, 2020 7:02 pm

KateR wrote:
Mon Jun 15, 2020 6:12 pm
Argumentative M'Lord :) I believe my facts are 100% right, mental illness is a defence and used as mitigating circumstances. I never mentioned anything to do with pleading guilty early, whether at a station, in court or to his parents, allowing a court to make any type of consideration and therefore the rest of your para is null and void as evidence and should therefore be dismissed, which I have. :)
Kate you have got it wrong again. Mental illness is not a defence. You are making yourself look silly now. It can be used as mitigation (again) but its 100 percent not a defence. your arguing with the wrong person regarding this love.

pushpinpussy
Posts: 2109
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 7:57 am
Been Liked: 891 times
Has Liked: 134 times

Re: Statue Prosecution

Post by pushpinpussy » Mon Jun 15, 2020 7:06 pm

Kate And before you argue any further ill make it a bit more simple for you. A defence is for example: Self defence, Consent etc. It is written in the legislation. Anything to do with Mental illness is not written in legislation but in sentencing guidelines to assist the court with sentencing. Mental illness therefore can reduce the sentence as its good mitigation.

KateR
Posts: 4137
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2017 1:46 pm
Been Liked: 1018 times
Has Liked: 6156 times

Re: Statue Prosecution

Post by KateR » Mon Jun 15, 2020 7:11 pm

pushpinpussy wrote:
Mon Jun 15, 2020 7:02 pm
Kate you have got it wrong again. Mental illness is not a defence. You are making yourself look silly now. It can be used as mitigation (again) but its 100 percent not a defence. your arguing with the wrong person regarding this love.
it is a really strange kind of discussion, you can think I'm being silly, I think your being obtuse and use semantics all you like. If you ask a solicitor to defend you, it is for the length of a trial, it is not what you are saying, he defends you up and to the time of the verdict and may even be retained as your defense attorney or solicitor. His every action is to defend the client until he is discharged including presenting mitigating circumstances for and on the suspects behalf.

However if it really helps your ego from this silly person, then you are 100% right and I am 100% wrong, but I offer in my defense that I am just a silly person who has no idea what she is talking about.

Here ends my defense M'Lord. :)

TsarBomba
Posts: 1619
Joined: Mon Jul 18, 2016 4:51 pm
Been Liked: 1138 times
Has Liked: 288 times

Re: Statue Prosecution

Post by TsarBomba » Mon Jun 15, 2020 7:14 pm

claret59 wrote:
Mon Jun 15, 2020 6:33 pm
I think this sentence is disproportionate. It is highly unusual to go to prison for a first offence ( we are not told if he had any previous convictions but assume not or we would know of it.) It seems bizarre that a group of people can damage a statue in full view of the police ( who were under instructions not to intervene ) and nothing happens to any of them by way of arrest / prison etc.
This chap did give himself in and one wonders would he have been caught if he had not done so. His actions were unsavoury but no lasting damage.
Wreck statutes, damage them, destroy them and that is apparently OK. Urinating in the street gets 14 days in prison.
You don’t understand how policing public order incidents works.

The more arrests made out on the ground throughout the day for relatively minor offences, results in less officers to deal with the violent disorder/riot that comes later on, which is the more serious concern.

Action will be taken against those damaging memorials, through CCTV. If you look at the 2011 riots, approx 3-4,000 were eventually charged, with the majority identified afterwards.

I don’t like the fact memorials and statues are getting damaged either, but unfortunately, it comes down to priorities.

pushpinpussy
Posts: 2109
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 7:57 am
Been Liked: 891 times
Has Liked: 134 times

Re: Statue Prosecution

Post by pushpinpussy » Mon Jun 15, 2020 7:16 pm

A defence is written within the legislation. If you think you have a defence you plead not guilty and run a trial. Mental illness is not a defence.

If you haven't got a defence you then you plead guilty. You then are to be sentenced. The sentencing guidelines have aggravating and mitigating features. Mental illness comes underunder mitigating features and reduce sentence considerably.

Burnley Ace
Posts: 3525
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 6:03 pm
Been Liked: 651 times
Has Liked: 2879 times

Re: Statue Prosecution

Post by Burnley Ace » Mon Jun 15, 2020 7:17 pm

KateR wrote:
Mon Jun 15, 2020 6:42 pm
drunk, self induced intoxication, where have I made these points anywhere, mental illness, that's what we, well I certainly was talking about when I said, it's been used as a defence

there seems to be very little point discussing anything if you don't have the basic understanding of what others are saying. You can plead guilty to anything and the you can introduce extenuating circumstances around the incident regrading why you did something. Those extenuating circumstances go to the court in terms of the sentencing and hoping to provide a factor/reason to lessen the actual sentence before it is pronounced, in this particular case you have no idea if the final outcome might have been in months, without his solicitor presenting to the court. Of course you can always write in and make your theories know and let the world known that this case should have been dropped because his solicitor has not got a clue, is of such incompetence and should never have brought this before the court. Or maybe he was working by the minute and wanted to talk for the sake of running his bill up. Also you can argue it is a waste of time and effort him saying sorry I didn't mean it just to add to the point because that might also have zero impact of the courts decision.

We all I think know what he was charged with, it does not change the fact that had he not been urinating he would not have been charged at all for this offence.
You are the one that seems to bE confused about what a defence is. He has not got a defence, he has not used anything as a defence because he has pleaded guilty and until you understand that very very basic concept of criminal law You are just spouting rubbish and wasting everyone’s time.

If, and I suspect this is where your confusion comes from, you actually mean “mitigation” then that’s completely different, this is why lawyers who specialise in criminal defence work will often explain that their job is to represent a client not just defend.

Now if his mental illness was such that he didn’t have the “mens rea” to commit the offence then he would have a defence however that was obviously not the case. The solicitor mentioned mental illness but as the defendant was produced from the police station and immediately entered a guilty plea (by statute getting an automatic 33% discount) there was no medical evidence to support this nor would it have been a defence.

The lawyer would not have been working by the minute as this is a criminal case where the defendants Liberty was in question and he would have been eligible for Legal Sid which is a fixed fee.

I appreciate you are in America and Perhaps don’t really understand the English legal system but learning a few definitions might help.
Last edited by Burnley Ace on Mon Jun 15, 2020 7:19 pm, edited 1 time in total.

BurnleyFC
Posts: 5057
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 11:51 am
Been Liked: 1596 times
Has Liked: 888 times

Re: Statue Prosecution

Post by BurnleyFC » Mon Jun 15, 2020 7:18 pm

I’m waiting for the others who’ve desecrated statues and war memorials to be sent to prison.

I shan’t be holding my breath.
This user liked this post: NewClaret

NewClaret
Posts: 13222
Joined: Tue Dec 31, 2019 9:51 am
Been Liked: 3037 times
Has Liked: 3759 times

Re: Statue Prosecution

Post by NewClaret » Mon Jun 15, 2020 7:21 pm

Rileybobs wrote:
Mon Jun 15, 2020 4:58 pm
Whether he has mental health issues or not a 14 day prison sentence for urinating in public seems extremely harsh.
Not harsh enough for me. 2 months wouldn’t be enough for me.

Will give him credit for handing himself in and pleading guilty though, thus no further wasting of police time, but it’s exactly this type of low level crime that we should be cracking down on - it’s the thin end of the wedge.

Am impressed at how quickly he was served his punishment though. All justice should be this speedy after arrest/charging.

NewClaret
Posts: 13222
Joined: Tue Dec 31, 2019 9:51 am
Been Liked: 3037 times
Has Liked: 3759 times

Re: Statue Prosecution

Post by NewClaret » Mon Jun 15, 2020 7:22 pm

BurnleyFC wrote:
Mon Jun 15, 2020 7:18 pm
I’m waiting for the others who’ve desecrated statues and war memorials to be sent to prison.

I shan’t be holding my breath.
Hope there are some arrests/convictions. Boris should be tweeting the images of those concerned and getting them locked up.

TsarBomba
Posts: 1619
Joined: Mon Jul 18, 2016 4:51 pm
Been Liked: 1138 times
Has Liked: 288 times

Re: Statue Prosecution

Post by TsarBomba » Mon Jun 15, 2020 7:26 pm

BurnleyFC wrote:
Mon Jun 15, 2020 7:18 pm
I’m waiting for the others who’ve desecrated statues and war memorials to be sent to prison.

I shan’t be holding my breath.
They will be sent to prison.

Again, looking back to 2011, people were getting custodial sentences for nicking a pair of trainers.

Alanstevensonsgloves
Posts: 1264
Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2016 12:40 am
Been Liked: 342 times
Has Liked: 399 times
Location: From Accy, Exiled in Surrey

Re: Statue Prosecution

Post by Alanstevensonsgloves » Mon Jun 15, 2020 8:05 pm

NewClaret wrote:
Mon Jun 15, 2020 7:21 pm
Will give him credit for handing himself in and pleading guilty though, thus no further wasting of police time
I believe his dad had something to do with it.

Billyblah
Posts: 596
Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2016 2:33 pm
Been Liked: 165 times
Has Liked: 29 times

Re: Statue Prosecution

Post by Billyblah » Mon Jun 15, 2020 8:10 pm

kentonclaret wrote:
Mon Jun 15, 2020 5:20 pm
Those commenting that public toilet facilities are closed simply to stop mass gatherings are wrong, they have been closed since the start of the Covid19 pandemic.

The Guardian actually reported on it last week and the distress being caused to elderly people leaving home dehydrated for fear of not being able to find a public toilet open. The article(s) also reported that many parks and open spaces were now pervaded with the stench of urine and that it was developing into a Public Health issue.
Government policy relating to going out 'socially' has centred around daily exercise and ideally taking that exercise in close proximity to the home. In such a situation, no need for public toilets to be open.
Similarly people recently heading to places such as Formby, Ainsdale and Blackpool beaches has been against government advice and public presence at such places has not been welcomed by the respective local authorities (Sefton and Blackpool) who purposely kept their public toilets locked to discourage such day tourists.
The Government requested the public not to attend any mass protest related gatherings in London last weekend. The toilets remained closed.

Loyalclaret
Posts: 2015
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 9:00 pm
Been Liked: 426 times
Has Liked: 364 times

Re: Statue Prosecution

Post by Loyalclaret » Mon Jun 15, 2020 8:13 pm

Two legal bods and a police officer sound like they know what they are talking about on this thread 👍
This user liked this post: nil_desperandum

NewClaret
Posts: 13222
Joined: Tue Dec 31, 2019 9:51 am
Been Liked: 3037 times
Has Liked: 3759 times

Re: Statue Prosecution

Post by NewClaret » Mon Jun 15, 2020 8:37 pm

Alanstevensonsgloves wrote:
Mon Jun 15, 2020 8:05 pm
I believe his dad had something to do with it.
Sure he did. If my son had done that, I’d drag him down to the cop shop myself.

Can understand the anger at statues being defaced/destroyed though, so hope the police are equally seeking to bring those to justice.

UnderSeige
Been Liked: 1 time
Has Liked: 826 times

Re: Statue Prosecution

Post by UnderSeige » Mon Jun 15, 2020 8:42 pm

Rileybobs wrote:
Mon Jun 15, 2020 5:17 pm
Public toilets aren’t closed to stop the illegal gathering of people. And I presume he got the alcohol from a shop.
Public toilets are closed to help stop the spreading of the virus. That is also the reason for making mass gatherings illegal.

Perhaps some 'local prohibition' of 'shops selling alcohol' could be temporarily imposed in places where mass gatherings are expected.

It begs the question. Are many protesters really there to protect statutes or protest against racial prejudice or are they out to get drunk and cause trouble?

LS7
Posts: 624
Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2016 9:42 pm
Been Liked: 125 times
Has Liked: 76 times

Re: Statue Prosecution

Post by LS7 » Mon Jun 15, 2020 8:46 pm

He doesn’t look great for a 28 year old. Perhaps not his first all night 16 pint session. He’s unlucky in the circumstances, clearly was just having a slash rather than making a statement. The shaming will have a much greater effect than the sentence. Hope he reflects on the actions and life choices which led him there and gets the opportunity to change into something better.

Post Reply