A brave schoolboy stepped in after he saw a woman being attacked in the street.
The 16-year-old saw Craig Claydon, 30, having a row with his girlfriend, Tanya Thompson, in Fossets Way, Southend, when he began to assault her.
The boy confronted Claydon by saying “Look, this is out of order, now stop it.”
But Claydon, of Westborough Road, Westcliff, re-sponded with “What are you going to do about it?” and rugby-tackled him to the ground.Lovely!
Police arrived, but Claydon kicked the door of their patrol car, knocking it into the shin of one of the officers.*sigh*
In mitigation, Paul Vickers said his client had no history of domestic violence.
He added: “He is living with Miss Thompson, the victim of the first matter. She did decline to make a statement to police.
“They are together, they moved into accommodation together and I understand they are awaiting confirmation she is in fact pregnant with her first child. They are planning a future together.”Oh, FFS..!
Claydon was given a 24-month community order, during which he must complete the Integrated Domestic Abuse Programme.
He must also carry out 120 hours of unpaid work and pay £50 compensation to the police officer, £20 for the damage to a fishing rod belonging to the boy which was damaged in the fracas, and £50 costs.Ah, well, at least in some small way he’s made to pa…
Oh:
The money will be deducted from his benefits.*sigh*
Now, I don’t begrudge either the police officer or the lad their money, but I fail to see why I should pay it.
And anyone want to bet just how long it’ll be before we see him in court again, maybe this time because there was no-one there to stop him when he decided to take out his frustrations on his girlfriend?
Or on his child..?
I thought bravery was banned under elf and safety and it can get you into deep s*%t with the law.
ReplyDeleteI expect the pattern for this 'man's' life is pretty much laid out. Hitting his girlfriend and assaulting a boy pretty much sums up his abilities.
ReplyDeleteBut thankfully the state is helping him through his difficulties. His benefits, although marginally reduced, will resume and he has free counselling plus the bonus of nooky at home, at least while the lady in question puts up with him.
Never mind, it could be worse.
He could move away from Southend.
It would have been interesting to know what " form" if any the defendant had? The wording leaves it open for reader to infer there was plenty, just none for DV.
ReplyDelete“They are together, they moved into accommodation together and I understand they are awaiting confirmation she is in fact pregnant with her first child. They are planning a future together.”
ReplyDeleteThis sort of situation has been going on for generations & will continue for as long as there are women too brainless to walk away from such abuse and/or violence ..
Historically, there has never been a better time for women to escape from such men, with rafts of Police, Social Workers etc put in place to help them .. but until they wake up to the reality of their circumstances .. they're beyond help ..
People like Claydon never change their spots, they simply get worse as time goes by ..
And, sadly in this day & age .. its no longer worth while for innocent third parties to go out on a limb and get involved ..
His photograph (appropriately labelled THUG) should be posted all over the area. We can't put him in the stocks for a few days so it's the least we can do.
ReplyDeleteCome on, you aren't really paying it. It isn't like he's getting extra benefits to pay for this. Sure he doesn't deserve any benefits at all but if he has no money and they refuse to lock him up, then he is at least paying - he's getting less of your money than he would otherwise.
ReplyDelete"I thought bravery was banned under elf and safety..."
ReplyDeleteGood to know it's not.
"Never mind, it could be worse.
He could move away from Southend."
*weeps*
"Historically, there has never been a better time for women to escape from such men..."
And yet they not only fail to do so, but some escape and then go back. That's incomprehensible to me.
"... but if he has no money and they refuse to lock him up, then he is at least paying - he's getting less of your money than he would otherwise."
I've a horrible feeling some state service or fakecharity is making up the difference somehow!