A husband who stood up to a yob who shouted vile abuse at his wife has been convicted of assault and told by a magistrate: 'Next time, walk away.'Modern Britain in a nutshell, is this case:
His 46-year-old wife, who is suffering from cervical cancer, was becoming upset by the boy, who cannot be named for legal reasons, screaming abuse through her open window.So, Mr Toth is in the papers, has lost his job and had to pay court costs, and the yob is once more secure in his behaviour because the adults around him, and the system itself, protect his rights above those of everyone else.
Mr Toth said: 'I went up to him and said, "Enough is enough". He said, "You can't touch me, I'll get you sacked". I thought his mum should hear this so with open palms I coaxed him towards her house, which is a few doors down.
Officers arrived at Mr Toth's flat half an hour later. The boy's family claimed Mr Toth grabbed him in a bear hug and tried to pick him up, causing six scratches to his chest.Not hard to see where the yob gets his attitude to authority from, is it?
Kent Crown Prosecution Service defended its decision to take Mr Toth to court. A spokesman said: 'The CPS only brings a prosecution if there is enough evidence to provide a reasonable chance of conviction and if the prosecution is in the public interest.'Really..? It's not in the public interest at all, unless you think that yobs should be allowed to do as they please, while decent people have no recourse under the law. But that would be to advance the breakdown of society and reverse the natural course of things, to put the feckless and irresponsible in charge.
Maybe that's actually been the plan all along...
"You can't touch me, I'll get you sacked"
And he was right. The purpose of the law is to enact the wishes of yobs.
How, exactly, does he "walk away" when he is in his own flat...
Blame the magistrates - particularly Tony Pomeroy. It is his personal philosophy which has led to yobbery. He's supposed to be upholding the law which allows people to take reasonable steps in self-defence and should have thrown the case out on its backside, not promoting his personal view that children must be allowed to run riot.
Kent Area Courts Board
via HM courts service:
"Tony Pomeroy is a magistrate member of the Board. He was appointed a magistrate in 1984 on the former Canterbury Bench and is now on the East Kent Bench. For some years he was a member of the Bench Training and Development Committee dealing with appraisals. He sits on Employment Tribunals and on the Independent Schools Admission Panel. He was a former member of the Kent Probation Board, the Social Security and Child Support Appeals Panels, Board of Visitors of Canterbury Prison and Consumer Council for Water. He is a school governor and for some years an advisor at the local Citizen Advice Bureau. He retired from a career as a pharmaceutical research chemist."
This country is absolutely screwed. I'm glad for the sake of any children I might have in the future that I'll be moving to the US soon, but I feel sorry for anyone who has to stay in this dump.
I don't just feel relieved though that I'm getting out; I feel absolutely f*cking furious at what's happened to to this country. I once had a birthright that other people fought and died for, but between the EU, the left in general, and people who are more worried about the rights of scum than those of decent people, that birthright has been made almost worthless.
Any child of mine will have a birthright that actually means something. Goodbye Britain, it was good while it lasted...
Very bizarre. Once again, Labour's legal system puts the victim second in the rank of priorities.
WOAR has it right. The problem is that the bench is dominated by activists looking to push the leftist agenda. As long as dyed in the wool loons like Pomeroy are allowed to hijack public office for right on point-scoring nothing will change.
This is how a proper magistrate does it in similar circumstances:
"Mr Brown had confronted the boy after shop staff had reported he was making trouble. Magistrate Hamish Ross said he and two colleagues who had listened to the case had concluded that the force Mr Brown used that day was reasonable. The magistrates also decided Luke Rainford, who is now 15, could be identified."
BBC summary - however, the following is the fullest report of the case, worth reading for the boy's father's quote and reader responses.
Seven month ordeal of shopkeeper who clipped young lout's ear
Magistrate Hamish Ross became a target as he was identified with taking a strong line over offences. An attack page was set up on Wiki by someone taking his name in vain, but the administrators deleted it. The argy-bargy remains in the administrators' log. Ross's ruling on Brown annoyed the police, about whom Brown subsequently complained.
Quite a difference in magistrate's attitudes there, WOAR.
Kind of puts the lie to the usual cries (such as over on Bystander's site) that 'their hands are tied...'
"Ross's ruling on Brown annoyed the police, about whom Brown subsequently complained."
I wonder how far he got with his complaint?
Do you have a link to the page that was supposedly being vandalized? I can find a lot of info on Hamish Ross' sockpuppets via Google but no links at all to the page in question.
"How, exactly, does he "walk away" when he is in his own flat..."
Indeed, I was going to say the same thing. This Magistrate thinks it is reasonable that this man should abandon his own property, and his ill wife, because this job is assaulting her in her own flat.
Note that it is assault, you don't have to physically strike someone for it to be assault.
Magistrates cannot sit alone - there are usually three of them, so it is nonsensical to finger an individual as being responsible for a decision. As a court chairman I announce decisions, but the decisions themselves are agreed - it's one-man-one-vote in the retiring room.
Post a Comment