It's beyond belief.

http://www.shieldsgazette.com/news/crim ... -1-8401470" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

He spat on someone. As disgusting as that is, inparticular when the victim is a baby (seriosly, who the **** does that?), it's hardly the crime of the century.

The answer is in the opening couple of paragraphs, no need for me to read on.

RingoMcCartney wrote:It's beyond belief.

http://www.shieldsgazette.com/news/crim ... -1-8401470" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Eddie will be on soon to tell you that the baby was a legitimate target because of the Wests involvement in the Middle East.

Hi Hapag, I'm logged on to track my container but its saying its currently in on the MV Kyoto Express at sea.

When can I expect it?

"The court heard after the attack last January, Abdulla spent time, between July and September, receiving psychiatric treatment in hospital, which has continued after his release into the community.
The judge said Abdulla's deteriorating mental health at the time of the attack "contributed" towards the offence.
Abdulla was sentenced to eight months imprisonment, suspended for 18 months, with rehabilitation and mental health treatment requirements."

Mental issues, but seeing as it's his 3rd offence of a similar nature it's probably better to lock him up or put him in a secure hospital.

Sidney1st wrote:"The court heard after the attack last January, Abdulla spent time, between July and September, receiving psychiatric treatment in hospital, which has continued after his release into the community.
The judge said Abdulla's deteriorating mental health at the time of the attack "contributed" towards the offence.
Abdulla was sentenced to eight months imprisonment, suspended for 18 months, with rehabilitation and mental health treatment requirements."

Mental issues, but seeing as it's his 3rd offence of a similar nature it's probably better to lock him up or put him in a secure hospital.

If he'd done that to my child, they wouldn't have had the time to " lock him up or put him in a secure hospital"

Hapag Lloyd wrote:Eddie will be on soon to tell you that the baby was a legitimate target because of the Wests involvement in the Middle East.

No, mate, Eddie will be along soon to tell you that you are a lazy, ignorant git incapable of any original thought of your own. Any discussion with any hint of complexity passes you by.
You really have no idea, do you ?

RingoMcCartney wrote:If he'd done that to my child, they wouldn't have had the time to " lock him up or put him in a secure hospital"

Same, but as I've said, this is his 3rd offence of a similar nature and he's been undergoing treatment for mental issues.

At some point a judge needs to decide enoughs enough and put him away somewhere.

I have the same view on criminals who've got multiple convictions though.

Clearly, the bloke is bonkers - the spitter not Hapless or Dingo McC - and shouldn't be out on the streets. So why was he allowed out - his bizarre and disgusting behaviour could well have led to far more dangerous acts.

Lancasterclaret wrote:Hi Hapag, I'm logged on to track my container but its saying its currently in on the MV Kyoto Express at sea.

When can I expect it?

Last received ship postion was on March 20, 2017 01:47 Up The Clarets. And it was sailing the wrong way. It might have sunk.

"Ohhhhhh he's ill, and we should spend thousands helping him, whilst leaving him wandering around society in a medicated state. We have a duty to cuddle him"

Don't worry about the traumatised mother and baby in all this, whatever you do. Today he's spitting, tomorrow? Who knows.

There are alternatives. We should look at them. He's got form fer chrissakes!!!

Sidney1st wrote:
Mental issues, but seeing as it's his 3rd offence of a similar nature it's probably better to lock him up or put him in a secure hospital.

I'm sure he'll end up in prison. If he doesnt' then it proves the judge's decision was the right on because it means he'll have received his treatment and not re-offended for the next 18 months. That's the good thing about suspended prison sentences.

bobinho wrote:"Ohhhhhh he's ill, and we should spend thousands helping him, whilst leaving him wandering around society in a medicated state. We have a duty to cuddle him"

Don't worry about the traumatised mother and baby in all this, whatever you do. Today he's spitting, tomorrow? Who knows.

There are alternatives. We should look at them. He's got form fer chrissakes!!!

So we should send him to prison at even greater expense to the tax payer, not give him any kind of psychiatric help, which he obviously needs, and then have him re-offend again send him to prison for even longer at even more expense and not treat his illness, release him, re-offend...

Or we can try one more time to get him the help he needs before we send him to prison. If he doesn't take his help seriously he'll spit on someone again and then he'll be spending time in prison, but if he does get help and it works then isn't that a good thing? Would you then still wish he was sent down?

He's got an 8 month prison sentence suspended for 18 months. He has one last chance and if he ***** it up then he'll be in prison and there'll be no doubt he couldn't have been helped, and therefore deserves it.

Imploding Turtle wrote:I'm sure he'll end up in prison. If he doesnt' then it proves the judge's decision was the right on because it means he'll have received his treatment and not re-offended for the next 18 months. That's the good thing about suspended prison sentences.

I agree he needs treatment, but it's his 3rd offence.

Does he need to do it again a few more times, because 3 strikes and you're put away in a hospital would be more sensible?

This is a side-issue, probably, but our prisons are full of headcases like these. Criminals, yes, disgustingly so, but bonkers too. The system is breaking down not just because of privatisation's underfunding but also because of the type of inmate being confined. It's a tricky one that only forward-thinking and extra provision will alleviate but, let's face it, no Home Sec/Prisons Minister is going to sanction that in this generation's abysmal economic climate.

Sidney1st wrote:I agree he needs treatment, but it's his 3rd offence.

Does he need to do it again a few more times, because 3 strikes and you're put away in a hospital would be more sensible?

It happened last january and there was medical evidence presented to the court that showed he was suffering from psychiatric problems at the time. I can understand why the judge gave him a suspended sentence as opposed to an immediate custodial sentence that does nobody any good.

This guy hasn't avoided jail yet. The only way he'll end up avoiding jail is if he deserves to avoid jail, and the only way he can deserve to avoid jail is if he reforms.

"He'll spit on someone again"

Ok. If that's the only threat he could offer, then happy days. Could you guarantee the next offence is spitting? No? Ok, let's wait til he actually does serious physical harm before recognising that he's dangerous.

Help him in the community, or help him in custody. I know where I'd prefer that to happen.

bobinho wrote:"He'll spit on someone again"

Ok. If that's the only threat he could offer, then happy days. Could you guarantee the next offence is spitting? No? Ok, let's wait til he actually does serious physical harm before recognising that he's dangerous.

Help him in the community, or help him in custody. I know where I'd prefer that to happen.

That's an interesting strawman you've built there.

Oh bore off. That's me done.

bobinho wrote:Oh bore off. That's me done.

Well, you made up the idea that i was saying that spitting is the only possible crime he could commit, and then you attacked the idea you made up because it was easier to do that that actually argue against the points I made. That's a strawman. Being butthurt about it doesn't change anything.

evensteadiereddie wrote:No, mate, Eddie will be along soon to tell you that you are a lazy, ignorant git incapable of any original thought of your own. Any discussion with any hint of complexity passes you by.
You really have no idea, do you ?

Rattled...and before you ask, no I don't want to meet you at the next home game to "discuss" things.

Lancasterclaret wrote:Hi Hapag, I'm logged on to track my container but its saying its currently in on the MV Kyoto Express at sea.

When can I expect it?

Need a box number mate.

Hapag Lloyd wrote:Rattled...and before you ask, no I don't want to meet you at the next home game to "discuss" things.

Even if you did evidence suggests you'd get lost in the mid-atlantic and not be seen for days.

Well done, you've really grasped this topic, Hapless, saxo, er KBRFC, er whoever you are. Your contributions provoke much deep thinking and consideration...
Rattled by whom and about what ? You've said nothing other than constantly give some rather vague (vague, notice, you haven't actually had the nuts to accuse directly) hints that somewhere, sometime on this board I've supported terrorism. Pure cack, of course, but you clearly find it difficult to follow any issue that has several layers but this is what happens when you have a board open to all.
You're stupid, you're too lazy to engage in discussion and I find you bringing the long-lost subject of meeting at the Turf quite odd. You're not another one with er, "feelings" for me, are you ?

RingoMcCartney wrote:It's beyond belief.

http://www.shieldsgazette.com/news/crim ... -1-8401470" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Serious question Ringo, would you have posted this story if it was about a white man spitting at a black baby?

Also, do you search for these stories or are you a regular reader of The Shields Gazette?

I'm thinking no, yes and no.

Here's one you missed. He avoided jail, too. Care to comment, Ringo ? Just in the interests of balance, you understand.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/02 ... st-attack/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Once upon a time scumbags like this were locked up. Then we had the back into the community scheme. Get the scumbags picture up everywhere so the sum bag will be shunned by society or if unlucky beaten up.

evensteadiereddie wrote:I'm thinking no, yes and no.

Here's one you missed. He avoided jail, too. Care to comment, Ringo ? Just in the interests of balance, you understand.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/02 ... st-attack/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Appalling , cowardly behaviour.

Should be struck off.

Rileybobs wrote:Serious question Ringo, would you have posted this story if it was about a white man spitting at a black baby?

Also, do you search for these stories or are you a regular reader of The Shields Gazette?

If he'd avoided jail like this racist primitive cowardly hateful animal. Yes.

Got family there. Was there for the Sunderland game this weekend. The in laws weren't happy and say stuff like this are a regular occurrence.

Absolutely - both horrendous characters but worlds apart.

evensteadiereddie wrote:Absolutely - both horrendous characters but worlds apart.

Not from the victims point of view.

True enough, true enough.
You do despair at times.

For comparison -

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/ma ... 03121.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

White bloke punches baby in the face because he thought it was a doll.
He didn't go to prison, just got fined..........just a fine for punching a 5 day old baby in the face.....

I don't recall any mock rage on here at the time though.

There is a big problem, fuelled by the left, that all racists are white.
When a coloured person is a racist they get treated with kid gloves, because any action against them is seen as RACIST. They pull the colour card, and there is always some looney left wing, PC prat willing to make a case of how misguided and misunderstood they are.

People are people. They commit a crime they should be punished, regardless of colour, race or religion. Sadly it looks like it will be a long time before we get there.

Colburn_Claret wrote:There is a big problem, fuelled by the left, that all racists are white.

Bullshit. People like you like to pretend the few idiots that think that way are representative of left-wing thinking but that doesn't make it true. It's such a completely stupid suggestion - that only white people can be racist - that it should be embarrassing to you to even think that a significant number of people think like that, but you hate the left so much that any kind of smear, however ridiculous, is justifiable to you.

Sidney1st wrote:For comparison -

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/ma ... 03121.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

White bloke punches baby in the face because he thought it was a doll.
He didn't go to prison, just got fined..........just a fine for punching a 5 day old baby in the face.....

I don't recall any mock rage on here at the time though.

Sid. If that same white bloke was walking up duke bar. And came across a lone young muslim mother with a child in a buggy. He spat in the baby's face. And screamed at the vulnerable mother, "asians shouldn't be allowed to breed". And this wasn't the first time he'd done it. Would would you expect a prison sentence for such appalling racist behaviour?

You missed my point.

A bloke punched a baby in the face, regardless of race/religion etc I'd expect him to get more then a fine.

Same with a bloke spitting at a baby, which turns out to be his 3rd offence, he clearly needs to be chucked in a mental hospital.

Take the racism part out of it and neither offence should've been dealt with so lightly.

Imploding Turtle wrote:Bullshit. People like you like to pretend the few idiots that think that way are representative of left-wing thinking but that doesn't make it true. It's such a completely stupid suggestion - that only white people can be racist - that it should be embarrassing to you to even think that a significant number of people think like that, but you hate the left so much that any kind of smear, however ridiculous, is justifiable to you.

********. But that's nothing new.
We allow Muslims to parade infront of Mosques spouting hatred and did nothing.
If a gang of white people stood in front of a church and spouted the same crap they would be arrested.
They gathered on street corners whilst the bodies of soldiers who gave their lives in Afghanistan and Iraq were brought home and called them baby killers. Never touched. Apparently freedom of speech only goes one way.
The society of Black Lawyers, no problem. A society of White Lawyers would beseen as racist.

I hate racism passionately. But this idea that because you are coloured you get special compensation for your attitude towards society is wrong.

They want to be treated the same as everyone else, of course they should. But that means acting like everyone else, and being punished like everyone else when you break the rules or flout the laws.

You say that it isn't the left wing / PC brigade that are fostering this in balance.
Well I don't see, hear or read about any right wingers fighting for their rights to be arseholes.

Colburn_Claret wrote:********. But that's nothing new.
We allow Muslims to parade infront of Mosques spouting hatred and did nothing.
If a gang of white people stood in front of a church and spouted the same crap they would be arrested.
They gathered on street corners whilst the bodies of soldiers who gave their lives in Afghanistan and Iraq were brought home and called them baby killers. Never touched. Apparently freedom of speech only goes one way.
The society of Black Lawyers, no problem. A society of White Lawyers would beseen as racist.

I hate racism passionately. But this idea that because you are coloured you get special compensation for your attitude towards society is wrong.

They want to be treated the same as everyone else, of course they should. But that means acting like everyone else, and being punished like everyone else when you break the rules or flout the laws.

You say that it isn't the left wing / PC brigade that are fostering this in balance.
Well I don't see, hear or read about any right wingers fighting for their rights to be arseholes.

I take it you've never seen a BNP or EDL Rally?

You're missing my point entirely.

Both acts were disgusting. But one was disgusting AND purely racist, which is something every right minded person should be opposed to. And therefore should have made a prison sentence guaranteed. Again, how this animal avoided jail (apart from the old mental illness trump card, being played again!) beggars belief.

It isn't a trump card when he's actually being treated for a mental condition.

The real issue is the failure of the courts to chuck him into a mental hospital etc when he's done it for a 3rd time.

Sidney1st wrote:You missed my point.

A bloke punched a baby in the face, regardless of race/religion etc I'd expect him to get more then a fine.

Same with a bloke spitting at a baby, which turns out to be his 3rd offence, he clearly needs to be chucked in a mental hospital.

Take the racism part out of it and neither offence should've been dealt with so lightly.

You're missing my point entirely.

Both acts were disgusting. But one was disgusting AND purely racist, which is something every right minded person should be opposed to. And therefore should have made a prison sentence guaranteed. Again, how this animal avoided jail (apart from the old mental illness trump card, being played again!) beggars belief.

It isn't a ******* trump card, he's actually being treated for mental illness..........

The courts should've locked him up this time, he's clearly never going to change despite what IT is bleating about.

I've asked you to look at it without the racist element but clearly you can't so there's no point carrying on with this one.

Colburn_Claret wrote:********. But that's nothing new.
We allow Muslims to parade infront of Mosques spouting hatred and did nothing.
If a gang of white people stood in front of a church and spouted the same crap they would be arrested.
They gathered on street corners whilst the bodies of soldiers who gave their lives in Afghanistan and Iraq were brought home and called them baby killers. Never touched. Apparently freedom of speech only goes one way.
The society of Black Lawyers, no problem. A society of White Lawyers would beseen as racist.

I hate racism passionately. But this idea that because you are coloured you get special compensation for your attitude towards society is wrong.

They want to be treated the same as everyone else, of course they should. But that means acting like everyone else, and being punished like everyone else when you break the rules or flout the laws.

You say that it isn't the left wing / PC brigade that are fostering this in balance.
Well I don't see, hear or read about any right wingers fighting for their rights to be arseholes.

Who the **** thinks black people get special compensation for having a bad attitude?

There's **** all wrong with a Society of Black Lawyers. There's **** all wrong with a Society for White Lawyers either. The difference would be, though, that the Society for Black Lawyers is to protect against racism, not project it. And that's something you don't seem to want to understand.

Anti-white racism is not anywhere close to as big a problem as racism towards non-whites is. It's not as big a problem as it used to be but it's still a problem.

And the idea the we just let people stand infront of mosques and spout hatred is hideously stupid. Ask Abu Hamza and Anjem Choudrey if the are allowed to spout their hatred in front of mosques.

And yes, you and I might not like it when people call our military personnel "baby killers" but so what? What crime is that they're committing? If it's not true then who gives a ****? This is what freedom of speech looks like. The fact that these people weren't criminalised for saying things we don't like is comforting to me because it shows that I can say things they won't like too. It seems to me that you're veyr anti-British if you think people should be arrested for saying things that you find offensive. What happened to standing up for British Values™?

Hamza and Choudrey got away with stuff for years, they just worded it carefully so they couldn't get arrested.

Sidney1st wrote:It isn't a ******* trump card, he's actually being treated for mental illness..........

The courts should've locked him up this time, he's clearly never going to change despite what IT is bleating about.

I've asked you to look at it without the racist element but clearly you can't so there's no point carrying on with this one.

You clearly want to ignore the blatant racist element and racist motivation. And you have to ask this question. If he'd come across a vulnerable muslim mother with a baby, would he have spat at her infant?

No. Because he's aggressive primitive cowardly neanderthal RACIST.

But fair enough let's park this one.

To spit in a babies face you're clearly not right in the head.

Yes he was racist in his attack, BUT he shouldn't have been out on the streets in the first place.

Sidney1st wrote:Hamza and Choudrey got away with stuff for years, they just worded it carefully so they couldn't get arrested.

Of course they worded it carefully, but that's because we're still erring on the side of caution when it comes to whether we should arrest someone for what they say. Free speech should be protected, and it should have to be absolutely blatant when we prosecute someone for what they "say".

It's also important that we understand what is and isn't a crime. Saying "I hate black people" isn't a crime, it's a personal feeling/opinion. But "I hate black people, and you should too" is no longer just an opinion, it's inciting hatred. Too many people seem to think that it's illegal to share racist views, and i think sometimes the police are too trigger happy when it comes to arresting people on suspicion of inciting hatred when all they've really done is been a racist ****, but these differences matter, and it's important to pay attention to why some people seem to get away with one thing while someone else, who isn't so careful with their words, doesn't. It's because they don't cross the fine line from opinion to incitement. But when they do they have the book thrown at them because all those opinions they've shared, where they've avoided crossing the line, they are all relevent in any incitement trial that follows that one time they ****** up.

No good preaching to me, I understand the differences.