Mother-of-two Faye Hill who set fire to her boyfriend's home after a row has avoided being sent to jail.
Jason Holt, mitigating, said Hill's relationship with Mr Dunn was 'on-off' and they had argued throughout the evening, when both had been drinking. She went back to the flat with him, continuing some sort of argument," said Mr Holt.
"She was ushered out. It was clear to her at the time of posting the card, not only was Mr Dunn awake, but probably in the vicinity of where it landed.
"She was aware there was a concrete floor, it is not a case where there was a fitted carpet behind the door.
"She had not appreciated she would have caused the devastation that she did."
But she didn't stick around to see what devastation she caused, did she? And the neighbours that were affected? What had
they done to her?
He acknowledged it was likely the offence would warrant a custodial sentence, but asked Judge David Fletcher to consider suspending the term.
Mr Holt said: "She did set fire to the card. The purpose was to mark her annoyance in a symbolic manner, and not to set the fire that ensued.
"She is at a low risk of re-offending, there is nothing to suggest she is a danger to anyone."
Except any other man who has an argument with her...
Judge Fletcher said he could avoid sending Hill straight to prison because there was a lack of pre-planning, a lack of any accelerant used and the offence was committed on the spur of the moment.
How fortunate you are able to avoid your unpleasant duties, Judge Fletcher...
13 comments:
Come off it Julia, I doubt the bloke she was with was the ultimate gentleman who knew how to treat a girl right. No, she shouldn't have done it, but maybe the bloke won't treat other people like crap again.
Talking of firestarters, my childhood school had a dinner lady that looked like Keith from the progidy. She was always setting fire to the kitchen. She didn't deserve jail, in fact we always enjoyed it. First for setting the fire alarms off and second for not having to eat the awful tripe that was dished up.
Just sayin'.
Feral.
Feral
Your evidence for the boyfriend being "ungentlemanly" enough to deserve death by immolation is?
On the other hand, from the linked article:
"Mr Dunn alerted a disabled neighbour and helped her leave her home."
His "ungentlemanlyness" is not overly apparent here.
As Julia pointed out, what had the neighbours, firefighters or anyone else who might have tried to help done to deserve potential death by fire?
It was only a matter of luck that she wasn't in court for multiple manslaughter.
Two people have a row, one resorts to arson, one rescues a neighbour and you are trying to smear the latter! Really?
She's a twisted firestarter? Does he smack his bitch up? :-)
Annonymous.
As said, she shouldn't have done it, yet they both go out on the piss, tensions are high and believe it or not, blokes just don't take care of females the way they should these days. Total lack of respect I find.
If she has no previous and stated it was a stupid thing to do and no one was hurt, then I say there should have been no prison sentence. I didn't say there should have been no consequence, but note I said she should not have done it.
If he was a gentleman, there would have been no argument would there?
Feral.
Feral... you're a twat. She's a twat and deserves prison. Would a bloke have got a suspended sentence?
Feral
What happened to equality?
So let's see what it looks like if we reverse things:
Male and female go out on the piss. She doesn't 'show him any respect' and an argument ensues. He then 'accidentally' sets fire to her house.
"If (s)he was a gX (lady), there would have been no argument would there?" and she wouldn't have had to try and burn him, the neighbours and assorted emergency service personnel alive!
See how hypocritical/fallacious/pathetic that sounds? And fancy the chances he wouldn't be locked up for attempted murder?
You can't have it both ways, you know!
I begin to suspect that in lieu of a library, the prominent feature of the judge's chambers is a Wheel of Fortune.
Feral.
"If he was a gentleman, there would have been no argument would there?"
Some people can have a row in an empty room.
There is zero evidence in the linked article that the boyfriend was at fault for anything.
'Would a bloke have got a suspended sentence?'
Dunno under this current pathetic government. What I do recognise is that when pensioners can't pay council tax, they are imprisoned, when you lose your rag over poor service in the authorities, you are labelled as a 'customer of concern' and denied an adequate service, when you are a person that has tried hard to get on and feed your family and end up losing your job because of greedy bastards, you are penalised about being on benefits and then the government decides to make you work for sod all because it benefits them, I seriously question everything in this country.
The fact is that neither I, nor you were there. Already said she shouldn't have done it, but depending on the circumstances, prison may have not been the answer.
Is twat the best you can come up with? At least give it a rummy go and launch some foul mouthed abuse. Always enjoyed a good sparring. 'Twat' doesn't ignite my foul mouthed verbal abuse.
Ta.
Feral.
Didn't take long did it?
Stand by for this blog to be ruined.
@Able.
I gave up on equality a long time ago.
If I had a row with a person of dark skin and police were to take a statement, me, being white (or a colour of lightish nature for the pc brigade) is more likely the one to be arrested. Why? Because it suits the targets.
If the bloke was a right catch, first he wouldn't have chosen the female in question to associate with, and second, she wouldn't have cause to row with him.
@annonymous.
Never said the boyfriend was at fault but surely he must have known the female's nature? I suspect he did.
Been watching the budget nonsense.
What a surprise about more continual cuts. Unfortunately as much as I love Miliband and Balls, they need to state that the conservatives know exactly what they are doing rather than stating they don't know what they are doing.
They are dividing people to the extreme. They are deliberately not producing jobs or growth so that middle and lower classes are forced to work for nothing while the toffs lord it up and become richer.
As said before, people will die under this type of regime. It HAS to be stopped. No mortal has the right to say who lives and who dies. Those of you that bleat about equality should focus on this. We are heading for communism from a wordly point of view conducted by the greedy bastards in a certain empire that want world domination.
The world and it's inhabitants are for no-one's domination. The world is only here to be respected.
Feral.
"...I doubt the bloke she was with was the ultimate gentleman who knew how to treat a girl right."
The dearth of gentlemen these days is, it seemed, more than matched by the absence of ladies.
"Does he smack his bitch up? :-)"
I bet he wishes he had, rather than leave it to the pathetic so-called justice system!
"You can't have it both ways, you know!"
If true equality had been what was desired by the feminist movement, that'd be true.
But...was that their real goal?
"As said before, people will die under this type of regime."
Whereas, if we elect someone else (who? Labour? Ahahahahaha!) we'll all have immortality?
Post a Comment