...for all the front, the 13-year-old was no gangster's moll. And this was no typical gang fight. She was raised in an affluent, middle-class family and, as Olly lay dying, she was picked up by her mother and given a lift back to their £500,000 home in a sought-after suburb of Reading.
The lives of the two boys had also been far from difficult. Raised by loving parents, the elder, known as Boy B, was in all the top sets at his school. And although the parents of Boy A were divorced he also came from a stable background.
Yet the pair chose to glorify and mimic the culture of inner-city gangs – joking online about stabbing people and posing on Instagram with knives and balaclavas.
Gosh. Could it be they are lying to us? Have they been lying all along?
All will be sentenced at a later date.
To what? Not anything like what they deserve.
Speaking after the verdict, Detective Chief Inspector Andy Howard, senior investigating officer at Thames Valley Police, said: 'The circumstances of this case are horrific, and will no doubt shock and appal people.'
No they won't. It's not even unique. Sadly, the only thing likely to be 'shocking and appalling' is the soft sentences they will get.
'Olly's completely unnecessary killing, orchestrated and carried out by three other children, should horrify us as a society.
'Olly's death is a tragedy that should never have happened. We all have a duty to educate and protect the children of our communities to ensure other families do not suffer the same devastation.'
Sorry, Andy, but I've no such duty. I can't march into schools and say 'Don't glorify violent cultures, kids', because you'll arrest me.
And if I refer to drill rap as what it is, worthless n****r music, you'll arrest me for a 'hate crime'...
Arrested within hours of the killing, the pair made no comment when quizzed by detectives.
Guess stabbing isn't all they learned on Instragram, eh? And yet, despite this, the courts still bent over backwards to treat them as somehow 'vulnerable':
Because of their age special arrangements were made for the trial, with lawyers removing their wigs and gowns.
But Boy A had to be spoken to by the judge for not taking the case seriously enough and having an 'attitudinal face' as evidence was presented.
He'll do all right in prison. Should he ever actually get there.
6 comments:
All three should be handed over to Olly's parents, with no action taken if the three end up in the mortuary.
And the barrister who complained that the judge was biased should be struck off - preferably his head struck off. What an arsehole.
From the article : Boy A had a conviction for robbing a 16-year-old of his trainers at knifepoint in September 2020, an offence for which he was referred to a youth offending team.
Well done team ! Oh.. you mean it was a 'youth-offending' team not a youth 'offending-team'. My bad.
During the last sixty odd years, adults have lost 'control of young people' by eshewing the concept of discipline. As a society we are all paying a heavy price for it.
Sting in the tail [of the post] as usual.
I should imagine the arseholes of the boys will be somewhat larger when they are released from youth detention (if they get it) than they were when they went in. Either that, or have permanent jaw muscle problems.
Penseivat
"All three should be handed over to Olly's parents, with no action taken if the three end up in the mortuary."
We have a system of justice - allegedly - to ensure we don't devolve into mob rule. But if it breaks down, and mob rule seems the only option...what then?
"Well done team ! Oh.. you mean it was a 'youth-offending' team not a youth 'offending-team'. My bad."
We're aiming for some golds at the Paris Olympics!
"As a society we are all paying a heavy price for it."
Spot on!
"Sting in the tail [of the post] as usual."
😁
"Either that, or have permanent jaw muscle problems."
Or emerge as educated criminals. Prisons seem to be better at imparting knowledge than comprehensive schooling...
Post a Comment