Tuesday, 31 August 2010

A Dangerous Precedent...?

Or a return to common sense?
A thug who beat up his pregnant girlfriend twice has been given a reduced sentence after a judge decided she was also to blame.
Huh..?!?
A jury heard Richardson first beat up Miss Thompson, 31, at her home in Brixton in front of her 13-year-old son, tearing off her dress and hitting her repeatedly in the face and threatening to kill her and her son. She fled naked to seek help from a neighbour but told police she would not cooperate with them because she wanted her relationship to work.
Ah. So she can't then have claimed surprise when he did it again.

In fact, she can't really claim surprise over the first attack, since he's got previous violence convictions and has done some bird for it too!
Judge Roberts said: “This was clearly a difficult relationship and I am sure that not all the rights were on one side and all the wrongs on the other side.”
Commenters are outraged, and I'm just awaiting the rabid 'women need protection from savage brutes' society to start up a campaign to get this reversed.

But...he's not totally wrong, is he?

Just why should women (and who knows, maybe some battered men too, not that the MSM would ever highlight this) continually fail to assist the police and courts in punishing their attackers and yet still expect to be believed and supported on the eleventh time the cops and ambulance personnel turn up to pick up the pieces?

Maybe this is the start of some common sense and a new engendering of the concept of personal responsibility in the justice system? I can dream, can't I?

7 comments:

Mike said...

a rose by any other name......

Angry Exile said...

Okay, it's good but broken clocks are right twice a day. Don't hold your breath.

Mike said...

how do fish smell?

Lord T said...

Scum like this guy should do time. However, my view is that after the third call, three because that is a clear pattern even for someone that dozy, where there is violence reported then they say 'We are not responding. Call back when you are dead or he is illegally parked or call in at the station where you can make a formal complaint. Good luck.'

Then we would get a result. He would be inside for murder or attempted. She would be dead or a lot more sensible and, if kids were involved, the state would have something to do arranging some gays to look after the brats. Winners all round.

Fascist Hippy said...

Lord T, I don't think you are taking this seriously.

Spot on though.

BenS said...

Maybe I've misread this, but assault is assault even if the victim chooses not to prosecute. That this might be the umpteenth example of assault matters not one iota to whether or not the 28th incident is or isn't assault.

JuliaM said...

"Okay, it's good but broken clocks are right twice a day."

True!

"...my view is that after the third call, three because that is a clear pattern even for someone that dozy, where there is violence reported then they say 'We are not responding. Call back when you are dead or he is illegally parked or call in at the station where you can make a formal complaint. Good luck.'"

It would certainly avoid wasting time and resources...

"Maybe I've misread this, but assault is assault even if the victim chooses not to prosecute."

Yes, and just that tack was supposedly introduced to combat this sort of thing. I wonder why it wasn't followed here?