Wednesday, 13 January 2010

Actually, The Word You Wanted Was ‘Ubiquitous’, Judge Collier…

So, we are now allowed to discover the identity of the waste of oxygen who poured bleach over a woman who had the temerity to object to his evening of aimless disruption at her local ‘Vue’ cinema.

It’s Jordan Horsley, and he’s just faced the full wrath of the justice system…
Sentencing Horsley, the Recorder of Leeds, Judge Peter Collier QC, described the case as "unique".
Eh..?

What, exactly, is ‘unique’ about this creature? Was this a totally out-of-the-blue, uncharacteristic act?

Well, hardly. As always, we now discover he has the usual criminal record and associated non-punishment:
The court heard Horsley had a previous conviction for hitting someone over the head with half a brick and had been cautioned for assault on a separate occasion.
Well, maybe he was a young man from an impeccable background?

No again:
The teenager, whose mother died when he was young, had suffered a violent relationship with his father and was living alone at the time of the offence.

Judge Collier said social services had been involved with the family but said matters had not been resolved "satisfactorily".
OK, well then, maybe this case was ‘unique’ because the judge threw the book at him, instead of imposing the usual wishy-washy puni…

Ah:
The teenager was handed a 12-month detention and training order today at Leeds Crown Court after he was found guilty of attempting to cause Mrs Warden grievous bodily harm with intent.
I’m afraid I’m struggling to see what Judge Collier found ‘unique’ about this young man.

In fact, it seems like there’s far too many like him out there. But I doubt Judge Collier will ever keep himself awake at nights wondering why.

As NorthNorthwester points out:
"Any part of civilized life might have prevented Horsley from degenerating into a Morlock, but you can bet that at every level the liberals have been busy causing this problem and making it worse every blood-stained step of the way, and especially undermining the very notion of authority..."

7 comments:

Sue said...

Geez. Why am I not surprised he's a minority? You automatically realise this fact when at first you don't get a photo.

I wouldn't know what to do with this individual. He will spend his life involved in criminal activities.

These sorts of problems should never have arisen to the degree that we are suffering them at present.

Uncontrolled immigration is the main cause of many of our social problems. We don't have enough resources to cope and the infrastructure in the UK in the last few years has buckled under the huge influx of people from abroad, many of whom have never worked or intend to work!

ThreeOranges said...

His skin colour is irrelevant; what matters is the fact he can't understand the line between "petty but harmless payback" and something that'll cause long-term damage.

Look at what the judge says:

"You decided to take your revenge on her and you went to a nearby garage, which had a shop. Initially, you wanted to find some eggs to throw at her but when you couldn't find any, you bought a bottle of Domestos bleach."

It's as if the judge is excusing him for buying the bleach because there were no eggs available. The boy's intentions were initially harmless: he was forced into buying the bleach because there was nothing else he could use, right?

Rubbish. You can't tell me the garage didn't have a litre bottle of Coke or Fanta that would have done the job just as well! No, the little scrote deliberately chose bleach. He wanted to cause long-term damage to his victim.

If I'd have been the prosecution, I'd have forced him to answer why he didn't go for a litre bottle of soft drink instead. (And if he claimed ignorance of how harmful Domestos can be, I'd bloody well give him a glass of bleach and ask him to drink it.)

"Uncontrolled immigration" did not lead to this, but the failure to give him a proper sorting-out after he went for someone's head with a brick - THAT's what led to this. He probably got the idea that the police couldn't touch him.

And after only six months inside for ruining a woman's life, he'll emerge into the daylight still believing that.

MTG said...

The attack followed earlier complacency on the part of police and social services. These highly paid organisations supposedly combine efforts to prevent the further slide of bad apples like Horsley. Was a caution for an insane brick attack upon a man's head, appropriate?

A Leeds judge spared police and social services any critical remarks and became lost in the nebulus optimism for some resolution to Horsley's 'emotional problems' during his brief detention.

Far more probable is further progression along a 'disturbed' violent path until some innocent is killed or permanently incapacitated. The wheel then turns full circle to the legal feast of the ubiquitous Public Inquiry.

Naturally, all the above would be a complete frittering of tax payers' resources were it not for the worthwhile, evergreen cause of 'lessons to be learned'.

AntiCitizenOne said...

I'm only working so hard so when I get rich I can rent out the houses next door to soft judges and stuff them with early release crims.

JuliaM said...

"I wouldn't know what to do with this individual. He will spend his life involved in criminal activities. "

He already has, hasn't he?

"It's as if the judge is excusing him for buying the bleach because there were no eggs available. "

Indeed. I don't know why they always feel the need to make such lengthy summings-up, it's bound to trip them up sooner or later.

"He probably got the idea that the police couldn't touch him."

He's not alone in that opinion, either.

JuliaM said...

"Naturally, all the above would be a complete frittering of tax payers' resources were it not for the worthwhile, evergreen cause of 'lessons to be learned'."

Ah, yes. Haven't heard that phrase in a while. But I'm sure there are some cases in the pipeline just waiting...

"I'm only working so hard so when I get rich I can rent out the houses next door to soft judges and stuff them with early release crims."

I think that's something we'd all chip in to see!

banned said...

He will have gone through the usual process of not being punished at home or school, getting a few tellings off in early brushes with the law. Some budget obsessed SS manager will have delayed his entry into unsecure 'secure local authority accomodation' as his violence escalated. Remember we only know about what he was convicted of, not what he also got away with.
Then a couple of fines and 18 months delay as his Legal Aid lawyer runs rings round some puppy from the CPS before his first 'community sentence' which he won't have carried out but during which he'll commit the crime for which he is finally imprisoned but it'll be suspended.

I know, I was the neighbour of a similar (but white) person, though he was 'old school' and did not shit on his own doorstep as they put it.