The former soldier was supposed to be attending a probation-run course on domestic violence at the time, after attacking a previous partner.That worked well, then...
Perhaps the three years he got will work better (even if he won't serve anything like three years)?
Paul Dentith, defending, said Clark had moved to Devon after that sentence which meant he had not been able to complete a course designed to address his violence.Anyone think we've seen the last of him?
He said: "In this incident he lost his temper after an argument and he did not have a clear recollection of what he had done. In his words, he lost it."
Nope. Me neither.
No - as the Justice System will simply reinforce his offending behaviour BUT at every stage and after every reoccurrence an inquiry will lead to new procedures and processes being implemented with lessons being learned. I think that covers everything!
ReplyDeleteI agree with ranter but what is with (as I've pointed out elsewhere) the compulsion of the press to call him a 'former soldier'. We never see 'former brick-layer', 'former barrister' 'former journalist', etc. we very rarely see mention of a criminals membership of certain ethnicities or belief in 'the religion of peace' (Gag), so why?
ReplyDeleteHe's 22 so even if he was currently a serving member of the military he would have spent a relatively little time doing so. I see it time after time, the fact that a person accused, or guilty, of a crime listed as having served in the military, even if it was for two years, sixty years ago.
It is almost as if the 'saintly' members of the press assume that having served your country automatically makes you a violent/raping/murdering criminal. Do these idiots all follow the sixties 'hippy freak' philosophy of their hypocritical progressive professors so blindly?
Stupid question, wasn't it?
Oh, and for the record I'd guess the reason he is a 'former' soldier is because he was unsuitable, undisciplined and unable to restrain his violent nature, in other words, not an example of a typical soldier.
Do these courses actually work? (...)
ReplyDeleteAnd without knowing the provocation of his 'lady' we can't really take sides either. In my experience, those people always deserve each other and everything they inflict on themselves.
True, he broke her nose(it's quite easy, think chicken wing) and he put on a delayed serious aggression display, but that is not really a 'beating with intent' as such, more of a scuffle with minor consequences.(think about it, had he seriously beaten her up it would have looked very different)
'Domestic violence' is nothing other than a racket to drum up business for help groups and the courts and to keep the workshy police busy with safe non-jobs, lest they'd have to go out and catch some real crims.
"The former soldier was supposed to be attending a probation-run course on domestic violence at the time, after attacking a previous partner."
ReplyDeleteA disgrace to manhood equipped with potential to elevate his criminal status and we can only hope the Army is not part of the problem.
Once again Able, I find myself in agreement ..
ReplyDeleteOne cannot help but wonder what proportion of his military service was spent in detention, of one sort, or another ..
Which as you say, probably accounts for why he's no longer a soldier ..
One of those cases where I can't help casting my mind back to the Not The Nine O'Clock News solution for fooball hooligans... "he lost it", well, after such repeated attacks, now he should lose "them"....
ReplyDelete"The former soldier"
ReplyDeleteIndeed. We never know if anyone has checked this - lots of people claim to have been in the forces as it sounds good. The defence solicitors have the get-out that they can rely on "what my client told me" .
I wonder if anyone on ARRSE ever met him when he says he was in?
" I think that covers everything!"
ReplyDeleteI think so too!
"Stupid question, wasn't it?"
Kind of.. ;) I suspect, though, that it's used in crimes of violence the same way 'former boxer' would be - to imply that here is someone trained to violence and killing.
Even if he or she never got further than the parade ground.
"...without knowing the provocation of his 'lady' we can't really take sides either.."
No, it's entirely possible she's no angel. But assault is assault.
"One cannot help but wonder what proportion of his military service was spent in detention, of one sort, or another .."
Indeed!