I'm sure you've all scene the story from Friday's 'Daily Mail' about the lunatic who exposed himself on a Tube Train in East London, before being bundle off on to the platform by outraged passengers and arrested by a passenger who happened to be an off duty police officer.
But have you seen how one 'journalist' chosre to frame that news?
Auchingarrich owner Alexa Reid said she could “not under any circumstances condone” his past actions, but said she wanted to give him a second chance. In a statement, she said: “Liam has expressed genuine remorse for his previous actions and a heartfelt desire to change.What did he do? Well, something that should have disqualified him from working for a wildlife park that's for sure!
“He understands the importance of responsible care for animals.
“We see this as a valuable opportunity for him to give back to the community and the animals, and we fully support his efforts.
“Our team will provide thorough training and supervision at all times as he learns about proper animal care and welfare.
“We recognise the negativity surrounding Liam due to his past actions, but we firmly believe that everyone deserves a second chance.
“Our goal is to assist him in making positive choices moving forward.”
No matter the understandable backlash, she's so convinced of the correctness of her actions she will not back down. Rather like the HR creatutes persecuting nurse Peggie for refusing to change in front of a man in womanface. What is it up there, something in the water?
Should I only drink bottled on my next visit?
Carol Shaw was subjected to a savage attack by Kieran Matthew, 17, that left her unconscious in a pool of blood after she asked him to change separately from other pupils. Shortly after carrying out the vicious assault on March 22, 2024, at St Paul's Academy in Dundee, the teenager put his feet up on another teacher's desk and said: 'The stupid cow deserved it.'
The court heard Ms Shaw had been left 'permanently disfigured' with a 'significant scar' and was too traumatised to return to work. It comes as she had 'dedicated her life to vulnerable school children like [Matthew]'.
Sheriff Tim Niven-Smith added: 'It is difficult to imagine a more serious assault, having regard to the consequences of your attack for Ms Shaw. 'It is not over-egging the pudding or exaggerating to say your attack has affected her life in every aspect. She is permanently disfigured. Photos show an extensive, significant scar on her head.
'Until her promotion, she was the safe person for you to seek sanctuary with if you felt overwhelmed. She has dedicated her life to vulnerable school children such as you. 'You have robbed her of her career as she has been unable to go back to school due to panic attacks, nightmares and night terrors as a result of this assault.Note the continued referral to this young thug as the one who is 'vulnerable', despite his actions proving that it's those around him and his explosive temper, lack of self-control and disregard of authority who are vulnerable.
The horrific assault took place after the pupil, who was in S5 at the Dundee school, refused to get changed separately from other pupils before a PE class. This measure - agreed by Matthew, his foster mum and the school - had been put in place because of previous aggression towards other children.
And of course, he's portrayed as the victim by the court system.
Solicitor Theo Finlay, defending, said Matthew had moved to foster care as a young child after being subjected to abuse in his biological family home. Mr Finlay said: 'He has had longstanding issues managing his emotions. It is likely he was already in a heightened condition. He experiences nightmares and requires to be medicated.
He requires to be removed from society entirely, and medicated where he belongs - in a secure institution. But this is Great Britain, where there's no longer any hope of justice for the actual victim:
'He told Matthew the offence merited 18 months in custody, but said it would be reduced for an early guilty plea. He said it would then fall within the sentencing rules on avoiding short-term sentences [under 12 months] for first offenders if an alternative is available. Matthew has also been placed under social work supervision for three years and ordered to attend Mentoring for Men and Designer Skills courses including anger management.
Speaking outside the hospital, another nurse said: 'There was a row with a patient. It just got out of hand but it wasn't a case of the patient going berserk.'
Umm, what?
'It was just a disagreement that can happen late at night. It happens all the time but it's shocking that the nurse was attacked.'
Good grief! Why on earth is this nurse trying to play down what was, by all accounts, a savage attack on a colleague with a weapon of opportunity? I wonder...
Detective Sergeant Craig Roters said: 'This is a serious incident which has left a woman in a critical condition.
'Our thoughts are with her family and colleagues, and we will continue to support them throughout this investigation.' Greater Manchester Police said there would be an 'increased presence' around the hospital while officers conduct their enquiries, and to offer 'reassurance'.
I'm sure it's very reassuring, but you can't be there all the time, can you?
Survivors of domestic abuse are being criminalised and unfairly punished in the broken justice system, top lawyers, campaigners, and experts have said in a major call for government reform. Figures including Cherie Blair KC, former Victims Commissioner Dame Vera Baird KC, and campaigning lawyer Harriet Wistrich are among the signatories to a letter from the charity Women in Prison, calling for an end to “unfair criminalisation of women”.
Oh, go on. Give us an example of this 'unfairness', then.
They say the signs of domestic abuse and its impact are not taken into proper account when a woman ends up being prosecuted for a crime.
A crime she's committed? How is that unfair?
One survivor who went to prison said: “My boyfriend was a drug dealer who abused me financially, sexually, emotionally and physically.
“When we’d go out, he’d say ‘You’re carrying the drugs’. I was scared to say no.
“I was arrested and given a custodial sentence. I don’t ever want to see women going to prison after experiencing what I went through.”
Well, they won't if they choose better partners, and refuse to do anything illegal for them. But...you didn't, did you? You committed the crime. You are just proffering an excuse.
At the Labour Party conference in September, Ms Mahmood said “for women, prison isn’t working” and announced the creation of a new body, the Women’s Justice Board, which aims to cut prison numbers.
“Rather than encouraging rehabilitation, prison forces women into a life of crime”, she said. “After leaving a short custodial sentence, a woman is significantly more likely to commit a further crime than one given a non-custodial sentence.”
So, the answer's obvious - give them longer sentences!
A woman who abandoned a boy in a dark wooded area before claiming he had gone missing has avoided a jail sentence.
I guess the child must not have come to any harm, then?
The nine-year-old was found with a brain injury, injuries to his chest and neck and evidence of alcohol and cocaine in his system by a dog walker who heard him crying.
Oh.
McGovern, 31, was placed under supervision for three years and ordered to carry out 300 hours unpaid work after admitting wilfully neglecting the boy to his severe injury, permanent impairment and danger to life at the High Court in Edinburgh. McGovern, of Haddington, in East Lothian, also admitted attempting to defeat the ends of justice. She had been "unable to explain" why she left the boy in the woods.
Unable, or unwilling?
During sentencing, Lord Young told McGovern she had admitted "extremely serious offences". He said she had suffered from clinical depression and anxiety linked to low self-esteem for many years but has made "great strides" towards getting her life together. Lord Young said a custodial sentence "would be the norm" but was persuaded that he could deal with her by the imposition of a non-custodial sentence.
Persuaded by what, exactly? Certainly cannot have been by the burden this case placed on the emergeny services!
About 80 police officers, the force helicopter as well as mountain rescue and the coastguard were deployed in a "significant search operation", the court heard.
All that taxpayer money down the drain, and she is treated as the real victim by a useless, toothless 'justice system'...
Defending, John Scullion KC told the court McGovern "felt a sense of panic" and described feeling "something flipped in her mind" on the day of the offences. He said she had been introduced to cocaine at the beginning of the Covid lockdown and quickly became dependent on the drug. Mr Scullion said by September 2022, the drug had started to impact on her relationships with others.
He said she had taken steps to deal with her issues and added: "She has had mental health issues throughout her adult life, issues with anxiety and depression."
Surely, all the more reason she should be locked away where she can't harm anyone else?
H/T: Andy Bryson via Twitter
A series of deeply violent, sinister murders and attacks carried out by children have hit the headlines in recent months. Last week, the 17-year-old boy who stalked and murdered schoolgirl Holly Newton, 15, was found guilty of murder in just the latest youth case to reach the courtroom. From the killing of Brianna Ghey by Scarlett Jenkinson and Eddie Ratcliffe to that of Shawn Seesahai by two unnamed 12-year-olds, some of Britain's most dreadful crimes have involved shockingly young perpetrators.
Can we find an expert to say that these murderers are the real victims? Reader, of course we can...
MailOnline spoke to clinical and forensic psychologist and co-host of Locked-Up Living Dr Naomi Murphy about some of the most chilling crimes to go through the UK's courts in recent times. Dr Murphy, who has almost two decades of experience working with some of the country's most dangerous criminals, including teenagers convicted of murder, told MailOnline how those at the heart of such cases are often 'really damaged'.
*sighs* Of course, reading the article, there are other conclusions to draw.
Just look at the names, where names are known:Bardia Shojaeifard,Cartel Bushnell,Yura Varybrus all sit among classic English names. And gang membership and 'revenge killings' stand out among the rest.A police operation has been launched as officers change the way they respond to ‘dangerously out of control’ dogs in Dorset. Operation Indie is to become Dorset Police’s standard response when a dog has bitten a human or killed another animal.
Good, good, at last they learn, so...what's the change here?
Operation Indie will mean that when a dog is involved in an incident, a dog handler will be deployed to the offending dog’s home address.
Huh?!?
The handler will then carry out a risk assessment and give advice that has been written up by a top dog behaviourist in the UK. The aim is to keep the dog from being seized, while putting the onus on the owner to prove responsible dog ownership.
How does that help the victim, or the wider public? Because, astonishingly, that's not what's uppermost in the minds of the morons who have come up with this approach:
A spokesperson for Dorset Police said: “Seizing a dog is the last resort and so if people can show that they are doing everything to ensure that the dog cannot bite again, then we prefer the dog stay at home for its own welfare.
“However, if a bite is so bad then it would leave us with no option but to seize.”
Good grief! Just ask Police Scotland for advice, they know exactly how to deal with these situations.
The spokesperson added: “We are lucky enough that unlike some other forces, our handlers on the dog section will all be dart delivery trained by April 2024 and so instead of seeing a dog out of control in public being shot dead, officers can attend and sedate the dog and then transport it to a vet.
“The vet can administer whatever care the dog may need as sometimes a dog’s actions can be because they are suffering an injury that we cannot see.“
Welcome to your 2024 police force. You thought they couldn't get woker. But Reader, you were wrong.
The manslaughter, which took place in West Sussex, was a “failure of the system as a whole” the report - a child safeguarding practice review by Birmingham and West Sussex authorities - found.
And we all know that no-one will lose their job over it. We won't even know their names. Or that of the murdered man, astonishingly.
The girl, referred to as Child A, killed the man, who cannot be named to protect the identity of the teenager, in October 2020 in a part of the county The Argus is choosing not to name.
The sympathy is all for her...
Child A had spent most of her life in Birmingham and had only moved to West Sussex in April 2020. She pleaded guilty to manslaughter due to diminished responsibility in July 2021.After she had killed her mother’s partner, she said that she saw him as a positive influence in her life.
What would she have done if she'd seen him as a negative one?
The report reads: “On the one hand what happened to Adult A is immeasurable because his life was taken, but Child A is more than a perpetrator of a terrible crime.
“She is also a vulnerable child who has been a victim of significant and horrific trauma and abuse in her short life.”
Everything after that 'but' is just sophistry.
A spokesperson for West Sussex County Council said: “Our sympathies and condolences are with the family and friends of the man who died.
“It is extremely rare for a child to cause the death of an adult, as the report makes clear. While in no way diminishing her actions, the perpetrator was, and remains a child who had experienced trauma and abuse throughout her young life while living in Birmingham.
“We welcome this report which looks at the involvement of multiple agencies, including our children’s services when the child moved to West Sussex, seven months before the incident. Our involvement included regular, face-to-face contact from our staff during the Covid-19 pandemic. As the report acknowledges, our staff who supported her and recognised the huge trauma she had suffered and the impact this has had on her life.”
She still has one, though. The murdered man doesn't even have his name.
It would be hard to find a more stark illustration of the cost of living crisis than the fact that one in 10 young people say they have shoplifted to cope with rising costs. In one London borough, Calpol is the most shoplifted item. Elsewhere, parents say they are having to steal formula milk to feed their babies.
Yes, I expect they do. They are hardly likely to tell you what they are really using it for, are they? And why does no-one ask what they are spending their child benefit on, if not their child?
But rather than offering families the support they need, the government is instead increasing the use of invasive facial recognition technology to track shoplifters. This feels like an attempt to criminalise poverty.
No, it's an attempt to catch - or prevent access to - those who are already criminals. No matter who they are.
Last month, Project Pegasus was launched. Ten of the country’s biggest retailers are planning to tackle the rise in shoplifting by handing over their CCTV images to the police, to be run through police databases using facial recognition technology.
I'd hate to have to point out that if they actually turned up, they'd catch them red handed, but...oh, I just did, didn't I?
The plans have been fronted by the policing minister, Chris Philp, who also has his sights on setting up a national shoplifting database which can be used by police and retailers nationwide. Such a database could include the passport photos of 45 million adults in the country.Place this in the context of plummeting trust in UK policing and the picture gets ever more bleak. Not only is such technology ripe for misuse, history tells us surveillance tech will always be used to monitor and harass minority groups, and particularly people of colour.
How will it? It's going to be used to target criminals. Surely you can't be saying that minority groups contain more criminals than other groups, can you?
Using our passport photos – something we’ve submitted for the purposes of travelling – to track us when we go to the shops to buy a pint of milk is an extreme invasion of our privacy.
I've just renewed my passport, as it happens, and I've no qualms whatsoever about my photo being used in this way. Can you guess why? It's not because I'm white.
The challenges that shoplifting creates are best addressed by understanding the impact rising costs and poverty are having on people across the country, who are are struggling to pay their bills and feed their children.
No, it's not the case that people are stealing to 'feed children' - they are mostly stealing to feed their own greed or a drug habit.
A banned dog called Blaze has been saved from being destroyed after police obtained a court order exempting it from legislation.
Wait, what?!
The two-year-old Pit Bull was seized by police from a house in Norwich on March 3 after being suspected of being an illegal breed. It has now been returned permanently to its owner Laura Baluch, 20, after Norwich Magistrates’ Court was told it did not pose a risk to the public. Magistrates approved a police application for the family pet to be placed on the index of exempt dogs.
Oh, FFS!
PC Annelly Miles, Norfolk and Suffolk police dog legislation officer said after being seized Blaze had been identified to be a Pit Bull type. Owning a Pit Bull Terrier has been illegal since 1991 under the dangerous dogs legislation.
“Blaze was purchased by Laura about a year old having been advertised as a Staffordshire Bull Terrier but obviously this wasn’t the case,” said PC Miles. “He lives with Laura, her parents and her 12-year-old sister. He is very much a loved family pet.
“He has not shown any aggression to other dogs or people and I don’t believe he poses any danger to the public.”
She said the dog was “quite boisterous and full-on” but was still young enough to continue good behaviour training.
Why take the risk? Shoot the thing and tell them to get a nice Labrador instead...
H/T: Dave Ward via emailFollowing yesterday's indication that the authorities had finally woken up, here come the apologists barking and snapping at the people pointing out the problem.
First up were the useless West Midlands farce, no doubt eager to deflect blame from themselves, describing the crazed animal as 'a puppy' that was 'suffering from heat exhaustion'. One might wonder at a police farce that shows more concern for a killer animal than the girl it was mauling. Police certainly didn't pause when one of their own was mauled by one of their own dogs, did they?
Hot on their heels and snarling aggressively comes Zoe Williams, who has as much form as the XL Bully breed, for whom it's 'doggy classism and racism':
...it was never only about the dogs – it was also about the owners. When people muttered: “It’s not the dogs – it’s the owners”, it felt heavily class-coded; that these were the types of dogs kept by the wrong type of people.
...
Sociologists in the US describe something similar but refracted through race, Julie LaBagnara contending that “middle- and upper-class ‘white dogs’… receive social allowances that dogs associated with people of colour do not”.What would we do without sociologists, eh, Zoe..?
What to do about shoplifting? It’s a delicate subject.Is it, Martha? Why?
Shoplifting is not quite like other crimes.How does it differ, then?
Pilfering, purloining, filching, snaffling – it is by nature relatively trivial, the sort of thing children try their hands at without necessarily graduating to car heists and bank jobs.I thank my stars I clearly didn't have your upbringing, then. Because theft is theft, whether we are talking about nicking baby powder from Boots or bullion from Brinks Mat.
...most of all, shoplifting is a crime that seems to reflect social need: it rises when the economy dips.
Ah, of course. The fact that organised gangs are now behind it, or drug addicts stealing to sell for their next fix, is ignored; in Martha's feeble brain, it's always Jean Valjean stealing a loaf of bread...
Not only does “cracking down” on shoplifters through the criminal justice system raise difficult moral problems, it doesn’t even work.
Since when has combating theft - or any crime - caused a 'difficult moral problem'..? Surely not cracking down causes that, as we can see in California, as David Thompson's readership is quick to point out?
Technology has made breaking the law much harder. The use of deadlocks has decimated car theft...
And the use of keyless entry has increased it again. Technology is always a two-edged sword.
Yet in many modern shops, we have the opposite phenomenon. Although some security measures have increased, with door alarms and beeping tags, in other ways theft has become easier. Once goods were kept behind counters, but since the birth of large supermarkets they have been laid out near the door, ready for the taking. Automated self check-out means the customer in effect monitors their own behaviour. Staff levels have dropped precipitously.
Yes, and women wearing short skirts increases rape, eh, Martha?
...no, not Australia! The 'Guardian', where antisocial nuisances are 'vulnerable people'.
And efforts to curb their effect on ordinary people going about their lives are to be fought against, not welcomed.
These wide-ranging measures have so far been used to criminalise everyone from rough sleepers to buskers and cyclists. Southend-on-Sea, for example, has banned people from “using bikes in a way that has a negative effect for others”.
As someone who has almost been run down a few times by speeding bikes in Southend High St, and helped pick up an elderly lady who wasn't so lucky, can I say 'Well done, Southend Council, well done!'
...the plan is unmistakably rooted in policies cooked up under New Labour. In the decade after 1997, the perceived scourge of antisocial behaviour was a staple of political discourse and regularly made headlines. Tony Blair’s government broadly defined antisocial behaviour as that which causes nuisance, harassment, annoyance, alarm or distress and introduced several measures to manage it.
So anti-social behaviour is only a 'perceived scourge' in the tiny mind of this stupid woman? It's not a real scourge, that blights the lives of those who have to live with it?
'Nuisance, harassment, alarm and distress' are just things people should learn to live with? Seems like a funny thing for an airhead more used to writing about dating apps or the importance of getting a good night's sleep to hang her hat on...
In attempting to “out-punitive” one another, Labour and the Conservatives are using law and order rhetoric as a convenient distraction from the actual problems people are facing. Instead of stamping out “greedflation” – which has seen corporations use the cost of living crisis to push up their profits – the government is seemingly more concerned with, for example, banning the use of nitrous oxide, or laughing gas.
That's the 'greedflation' that isn't actually happening? And the laughing gas that's proving a danger and a nuisance to cleaning crews?
Sounds like it's no laughing matter, Daisy.
Oh, this is an easy one. It must be ''lengthy', right?
Oh...
The eight teenagers, some as young as just 14 at the time, attacked Tom Hilton, who was 17, after chasing him down "like a pack of gorillas" and setting upon him with machetes, an axe and a golf club.
Bit harsh - gorillas don't engage in tribal warfare. Chimps do, however...
Danny Yakub, Kane Taylor, Davis Hargreaves, James Meagre, Jay Dean Slater, Connor Armstrong, a 16-year-old boy and 17-year-old boy - who cannot be named for legal reasons - were found guilty of violent disorder, and others also of witness intimidation.
After the group were arrested and charged, the 16-year-old obtained footage of police interviews featuring the victim and a member of the public. He then circulated it on Snapchat, with offensive comments and emojis in a bid to intimidate them. Those posts were shared by Yakub.
During the trial the group also showed 'disrespect to the court', laughing and joking at what was going on.
Once, that would have sealed their fate for certain. But no longer.
Sentencing them all to community orders the judge said they group should be "thoroughly ashamed of yourselves", adding "but I am not at all convinced you are".
"I have to have at the forefront of my mind the fact that most of you were children when you committed these offences," Judge Philip Parry said."I hope for the sake of all your families, the public and the people who have offered you jobs and apprenticeships and the sort that you all grow up. Every one of you deserves to be sent to youth detention."
Then why didn't you? And why didn't you slap on extra time for the contempt of court?
Two police officers who followed two teenage boys on an electric bike shortly before it was involved in a fatal crash, sparking a riot in Cardiff, have been served gross misconduct notices.
This is an utter outrage. I'm not in favour of striking, but if every cop in the station where these two are based downs truncheons and walks out, I'll cheer them on...
Family members welcomed the move by the IOPC but said they still feared they might not get justice for the boys.
One member of Harvey’s family said: “If they [the officers] had not done what they did, the boys would be at home with us now. We’re happy they have been served these notices but worried that it could get blown out of the water, that there could be a cover-up. We want justice for the families.”
What about 'if they [the children] had not done what they did..'? Or if, god forbid, their parents had instilled in them some self respect and discipline?
But then, judging the area by this response, there's precious little of that to go around...
Earlier this month, South Wales police said 20 people – 17 males and three females aged between 14 and 36 – had been arrested in connection with the riot.
An open letter signed by more than 50 organisations and individuals including academics and campaigners and organised by the Cardiff Solidarity Group has called for an amnesty for them.
It says: “The unrest seen in Ely was an understandable emotional reaction to a tragedy that may or may not have been directly caused by the actions of South Wales police.”
Truly, an area/community gets the policing it deserves. So, let's see them get it. Good and hard.
Throughout the trial Cooper had incensed the family of Mrs Smith by leering and gurning at them from the dock whenever the jury were absent.
The jury found him guilty unanimously after two hours and 30 minutes of deliberation.
The sentences don't really reflect the effort everyone put in to get this pair behind bars, though...
The 17-year-old will serve three years and eight months and Cooper will serve six years and six months, both in Young Offenders institutions.
And words fail me, reading this:
Judge Dennis did not invite Mrs Smith's son, Adam Smith, to speak of the impact of her death on him and his family.
He said: 'I do not invite speeches in relation to impact statements from the victim's family. I have already read the impact statements in full and I take into consideration the age of the defendants, their mental health and welfare.'
Their 'mental health and welfare' is a lost cause, Judge, and if you can't see that, you shouldn't be on the bench:
A day before their attack on Mrs Smith, video footage from the pair's phones showed Cooper egging-on the 17-year-old to attack a woman in Ilford town centre. Ms Stonecliffe said: 'A young woman is seen walking towards the camera that Mr Cooper was holding. The 17-year-old was holding a long pole. He used the pole to lash out and strike her as she was putting her hands up to shield her face.' Cooper was heard in the video shouting: 'Smoke her, smoke her bro.' When the woman lay on the ground said: 'Boot her in the face. Just one tap in her face bro. Go on, do it, one boot on her face bro.' The 17-year-old hit out and the pair were seen walking away leaving the woman on the pavement behind them.
For this attack, Cooper received six weeks in a Young Offenders institution. The 17-year-old received a four-month Youth Rehabilitation Order.
Perhaps if they'd been caught and dealt with appropriately for this, Mrs Smith might still be alive. Why did the victim not report it? Why did CCTV not catch it? Is it because such behaviour is now considered so common it's not worth mentioning?
A teenager who raped a 12-year-old schoolgirl after messaging her on social media has avoided jail.
God, how..?!?
Marijuana smoker Joseph Flynn, from Newton-le-Willows in Merseyside, was 16 when he contacted the girl, sent her a photo of his penis and lured her to his house.
Flynn, now 18, was spared jail despite the court being told he posed a high risk of reoffending - after his lawyer said the teenager 'lacked understanding of consent.'
Was that his only offence, then? Reader, it was not...
The teenager, who was also found with indecent images of children, including one featuring bestiality, was sentenced to a 12-month referral order at Liverpool Youth Court on Wednesday.
Clever defence, or incompetent prosecution?
Cheryl Mottram, prosecuting, told the court the girl was struggling with her mental health at the time and felt she had done something wrong afterwards by 'getting him in trouble'. She also said she was quite clear in her account that at no point did Flynn force her to have sex, and she did say yes to him at the time.
*sighs* She can't agree, she's underage!
He was interviewed at the beginning of 2021 and answered no comment to all questions put to him and he was released on bail.
No doubt advised to do so by the defence, but if he'd known how useless the prosecution would be, he might not have bothered.
Frank Dylan, mitigating, said his client lacked understanding of sex and consent and needed to be educated. Although Flynn was assessed as a high risk of reoffending, Mr Dylan said this could be changed with help from the youth offenders service.
The odds are against it, though, aren't they?
Is it 'violent'? 'Drugged'? 'Animalistic'?
An early morning shopper was accosted by a "traumatised" woman who robbed her of £200 cash she had in her hand.
Oh...wait, what?
Victoria Lamballe, defending, explained that Duffy had had to leave the area after an arson attack on her Hemlington home a month before: "She lost priceless articles. She was speculating as to who started the fire. The fire was obviously heavily on her mind at the time."
The court heard that Duffy was unable to access her normal medication after she moved house and doctors, and that this, "resulted in an inevitable decline. She was under the influence of drugs at the time of the offence."
I'm guessing they weren't the prescription type?
Duffy, of Littondale, Hemlington in Middlesbrough, pleaded guilty to robbery. She has 16 previous convictions for 27 offences, which include theft and assault.
Well, at least that should see her locked up for y...
Oh, wait. I'm dreaming, aren't I?
Judge Howard Crowson told her: "The lady went to the cashpoint and came out of the shop. You felt - though there's no good evidence - that her husband had caused you great harm.
"There was a tug of war over the money. You bit her and it was a robbery. Seldom in a case like this, can I consider a suspended sentence. But your reports show that a good deal of your behaviour is motivated by trauma in your own life. You have survived a great deal of harm and the probation service can assist you with this."
No, surely not..? Not with that history?
Duffy was handed a two-year sentence, suspended for two-years.
I guess I'm only surprised the old fool didn't dish out some money from the poor box...
Judges in London have already ruled that the US's request was lawful and that the American authorities would care for him properly in prison.
Now, the home secretary has carried out her role in the complicated legal process by signing off the US request. Her officials said she was legally bound to do so because Mr Assange does not face the death penalty - nor does his case fall into the other narrow range of categories for her to refuse to approve the transfer.
If his lawyers cannot get a hearing back before judges in London, he could petition the European Court of Human Rights.
Still, it's nice to know there's some people we can deport when we want to, isn't it?
H/T: Ian J
