A knifeman who injured three security guards in a terrifying attack at York Hospital has been jailed for four years.
So he’ll serve…two?
The attack happened at about 11.30pm on July 22, near a science department at the Wigginton Road site, after Meason had “made a nuisance of himself” for more than an hour, Helen Wheatley, prosecuting, told York Crown Court.
It was the third time Meason had been caught with a knife in public, said Ms Wheatley.
On an earlier occasion, he had attacked shop security staff who caught him shoplifting.
Time to throw the book at him, then!
Judge Roger Ibbotson told him: “It is time you learnt how dangerous producing a knife and waving it around can be. You have shown little or no remorse. You still think of yourself as the victim in this.”
Eh? He thinks he’s
While he was sentenced, Meason called out: “He was strangling me when I bit him.”
Yes, well, he was trying to stop you stabbing someone!
His barrister, Emma Bennett, said Meason had himself been injured in the struggle and felt he had been attacked by the three guards.
He had been passing through York on his way home to Mansfield and had “taken refuge” in the hospital grounds after an “incident” in the city centre, she said, but she did not say what the incident was.
He had not intended to harm the three guards and his actions had been reckless, not premeditated, she said.
Carrying a knife around isn't premeditation enough?
Once again, from the report, it appears that the perp's counsel has been - let's be charitable here - testing the truth beyond breaking point in her plea of mitigation on behalf of her client. Moreover, her stream of crap seems to have worked since he received an actual 2-year stretch for what appears to be a premeditated act of violence.
It's not as if having the judge give the barrister a reprimand for speaking rubbish would result in creating grounds for an appeal let alone an overturn of the verdict. After all she's only speaking to the judge who is able (well - that might be debateable in many cases) to make up his own mind concerning the appropriateness of the sentence he is about to declare.
Of course this "plea in mitigation" malarkey is only play-acting. Emma Bennett has no more belief in the words she is spouting on the perp's behalf than I have. However, since this shite is reported - and pleas in mitigation are consistently reported - it adds to the creation of an atmosphere where the scum of the earth appear to have some legitimate justification for the dysfunctional, criminal and parasitic lives they lead at the (financial and other) expense of the rest of us.
A similar and just as nauseating "atmosphere creator" is the predictable stream of nonsense in the "social media" (often compounded by ex cathedra statements by a local race hustler) following the death of some scrote in a gang-related incident. The victim (usually with a criminal and/or socially disruptive record) is "turning his life round", "always happy and smiling", "universally popular", "had a trial for Arsenal" etc etc. The misery the scrote and his friends create for their unlucky neighbours is generally ignored: or, if not ignored, then effectively dismissed as unimportant in the context of providing support for this part of the underclass who are, almost invariably, painted as the victims of an uncaring (usually racist) society. Further, when the scrote's killer is at last dragged into court and found guilty, rest assured Emma or one of her colleagues will be there to spout nonsense in mitigation.
"...it appears that the perp's counsel has been - let's be charitable here - testing the truth beyond breaking point in her plea of mitigation..."
And yet, it always seems to work!
Post a Comment