Quizzes & Puzzles43 mins ago
Further To, Is Life This Cheap In 21St Century England?
37 Answers
http://
/// The mother of a thug who killed an autistic man dismissed his crime as ‘no big deal’ last night. ///
/// In a display of callous indifference, Sherron O’Hagan said she did not know ‘what all the fuss was about’. ///
By this vile woman's comments, I think that in this case it is safe to put the blame on the parents.
/// The mother of a thug who killed an autistic man dismissed his crime as ‘no big deal’ last night. ///
/// In a display of callous indifference, Sherron O’Hagan said she did not know ‘what all the fuss was about’. ///
By this vile woman's comments, I think that in this case it is safe to put the blame on the parents.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by anotheoldgit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
ummmm
/// Like Prudie said, it happens all over the UK, it just fortunately doesn't end in death. ///
Well in this case it did, and we are not discussing general punch ups that don't end up with death, but this particular case, and in such circumstances one reaps what they sow, and hopefully this lenient sentence will be increased on appeal, we can then hope to rid our streets of such thugs for very much longer.
Interesting to read this judge's past record.
/// Like Prudie said, it happens all over the UK, it just fortunately doesn't end in death. ///
Well in this case it did, and we are not discussing general punch ups that don't end up with death, but this particular case, and in such circumstances one reaps what they sow, and hopefully this lenient sentence will be increased on appeal, we can then hope to rid our streets of such thugs for very much longer.
Interesting to read this judge's past record.
jackthehat
/// In the cold light of day, *all* Lewis Gill did was punch Andrew Young.
That this punch was the major contributory factor to Mr Young's death is indisputable but Gill did not intend to kill Mr Young. ///
A drunken driver who runs down a pedestrian that later dies, also would not have set out intentionally to kill that particular pedestrian, are you then saying that the drunken driver should also receive such a lenient sentence?
/// In the cold light of day, *all* Lewis Gill did was punch Andrew Young.
That this punch was the major contributory factor to Mr Young's death is indisputable but Gill did not intend to kill Mr Young. ///
A drunken driver who runs down a pedestrian that later dies, also would not have set out intentionally to kill that particular pedestrian, are you then saying that the drunken driver should also receive such a lenient sentence?
/// Reading the article are you actually confident that she said that? ///
/// I just think it's shoddy reporting and I wouldn't trust that what she said hasn't been taken out of context. ///
/// whilst they may well be her words, can assume entirely different meanings depending upon which particular question she was answering at the time.....and which bits have been left out. ///
For those amongst us that seem to doubt that this is what this woman actually said, or if they were, they were taken out of context, (simply because it was reported in the Daily Mail I suspect), here is a 'RED' label report.
http://
It would seem that these were definitely the words of this woman, or we can never depend on our national press telling the truth, independent of their suspected political leaning.
/// I just think it's shoddy reporting and I wouldn't trust that what she said hasn't been taken out of context. ///
/// whilst they may well be her words, can assume entirely different meanings depending upon which particular question she was answering at the time.....and which bits have been left out. ///
For those amongst us that seem to doubt that this is what this woman actually said, or if they were, they were taken out of context, (simply because it was reported in the Daily Mail I suspect), here is a 'RED' label report.
http://
It would seem that these were definitely the words of this woman, or we can never depend on our national press telling the truth, independent of their suspected political leaning.
/A drunken driver who runs down a pedestrian that later dies, also would not have set out intentionally to kill that particular pedestrian, are you then saying that the drunken driver should also receive such a lenient sentence?/
Well the sentencing is very similar. One recent example:
///At the High Court in Edinburgh Lord Doherty sentenced Keith McCardle to 5 years imprisonment for causing death by dangerous driving.
On sentencing Lord Doherty made the following statement in court:
“Keith McCardle, you have pled guilty to causing the death of Gavin Fulton by dangerous driving. You lost control of your vehicle and collided with Mr Fulton as he walked on the pavement in Dundas Street. Your dangerous driving ended Mr Fulton’s life. It has caused inestimable damage to the lives of his family and others. No sentence that I can impose can undo that damage.
You had been drinking on the evening of the offence. You failed a breath test at the scene of the incident. About three hours after the incident you provided two breath specimens at the police station, the lower of which had a breath alcohol content of 63 milligrams per 100 ml of breath. The legal limit is 35 mg per 100ml of breath. ///
Well the sentencing is very similar. One recent example:
///At the High Court in Edinburgh Lord Doherty sentenced Keith McCardle to 5 years imprisonment for causing death by dangerous driving.
On sentencing Lord Doherty made the following statement in court:
“Keith McCardle, you have pled guilty to causing the death of Gavin Fulton by dangerous driving. You lost control of your vehicle and collided with Mr Fulton as he walked on the pavement in Dundas Street. Your dangerous driving ended Mr Fulton’s life. It has caused inestimable damage to the lives of his family and others. No sentence that I can impose can undo that damage.
You had been drinking on the evening of the offence. You failed a breath test at the scene of the incident. About three hours after the incident you provided two breath specimens at the police station, the lower of which had a breath alcohol content of 63 milligrams per 100 ml of breath. The legal limit is 35 mg per 100ml of breath. ///
-- answer removed --
-- answer removed --
So far my 3 children have never been in trouble, they have never brought trouble to my door, they go to bed on time and they eat their vegetables...
If one started acting like a knacker it would have nothing to do with his upbringing...
You are being unreasonably harsh on woman whose instincts would be to stick up for her child.
The Mail reported it to make them out to people they might not be of any moral standards. We don't need to know her marital status.
Her son done something despicable, as an adult, don't pick on the mother for that!!
If one started acting like a knacker it would have nothing to do with his upbringing...
You are being unreasonably harsh on woman whose instincts would be to stick up for her child.
The Mail reported it to make them out to people they might not be of any moral standards. We don't need to know her marital status.
Her son done something despicable, as an adult, don't pick on the mother for that!!
I'm with ummm on this - I also picked out that a certain daily paper - (no names, but its initials are DM!) felt the need to mention that this criminal's parents are not married.
I would also wonder about the veracity and context of her remarks - people of limited intelligence can be coerced into saying things that may not be meant in the context that they are printed.
On the other hand, it may be that this woman is equally morally repugnent as her son - but it really neither adds or subtracts from the crime, or the isue about the leniency of the sentence - it's simply a little more info to wind up the readers with.
I would also wonder about the veracity and context of her remarks - people of limited intelligence can be coerced into saying things that may not be meant in the context that they are printed.
On the other hand, it may be that this woman is equally morally repugnent as her son - but it really neither adds or subtracts from the crime, or the isue about the leniency of the sentence - it's simply a little more info to wind up the readers with.
ummmm
/// The Mail reported it to make them out to people they might not be of any moral standards. We don't need to know her marital status. ///
I agree that her marital status is irrelevant, but agree or not it is often taken into account ie "single parent family" etc.
/// Her son done something despicable, as an adult, don't pick on the mother for that!! ///
The reason that this mother is being picked on by the majority of the UK press is for what she said in support of her adult son's despicable action.
/// The Mail reported it to make them out to people they might not be of any moral standards. We don't need to know her marital status. ///
I agree that her marital status is irrelevant, but agree or not it is often taken into account ie "single parent family" etc.
/// Her son done something despicable, as an adult, don't pick on the mother for that!! ///
The reason that this mother is being picked on by the majority of the UK press is for what she said in support of her adult son's despicable action.
andy-hughes
/// I'm with ummm on this - I also picked out that a certain daily paper - (no names, but its initials are DM!) felt the need to mention that this criminal's parents are not married. ///
You are not accusing the Daily Mirror are you Andy?
/// I would also wonder about the veracity and context of her remarks - people of limited intelligence can be coerced into saying things that may not be meant in the context that they are printed. ///
Seems strange that you accuse a paper with the initials DM of stating that this killer's parents are not married, while at the same time speculating that this woman is of "limited intelligence".
What proof of this rash statement of yours can you supply us with?
/// On the other hand, it may be that this woman is equally morally repugnent as her son - but it really neither adds or subtracts from the crime, or the isue about the leniency of the sentence - it's simply a little more info to wind up the readers with. ///
Oh so this information that you have added about this woman's intelligence, is not also simply "a little more info to wind up the readers with".
/// I'm with ummm on this - I also picked out that a certain daily paper - (no names, but its initials are DM!) felt the need to mention that this criminal's parents are not married. ///
You are not accusing the Daily Mirror are you Andy?
/// I would also wonder about the veracity and context of her remarks - people of limited intelligence can be coerced into saying things that may not be meant in the context that they are printed. ///
Seems strange that you accuse a paper with the initials DM of stating that this killer's parents are not married, while at the same time speculating that this woman is of "limited intelligence".
What proof of this rash statement of yours can you supply us with?
/// On the other hand, it may be that this woman is equally morally repugnent as her son - but it really neither adds or subtracts from the crime, or the isue about the leniency of the sentence - it's simply a little more info to wind up the readers with. ///
Oh so this information that you have added about this woman's intelligence, is not also simply "a little more info to wind up the readers with".
I'm afraid that mothers do say stupid things, whether prompted or not, concerning their own children. Had this woman had the skills of a politician, she could have said much the same but in more subtle words.
Anyway, I thought some on here agreed with her. Aren't people saying that the court regarded the crime as 'no big deal' and, consequently, are complaining that the sentence was far too lenient ? It only takes one person, not a vast number, to ask that the A-G consider a sentence and I strongly suspect that this A-G would only submit an application for review because the press and a lot of the public complained, and that it would get nowhere if made. As a manslaughter, it is a pretty low level one. Hard to see how the sentence could be seen as in the category of 'unduly lenient' by the Court of Appeal.
Anyway, I thought some on here agreed with her. Aren't people saying that the court regarded the crime as 'no big deal' and, consequently, are complaining that the sentence was far too lenient ? It only takes one person, not a vast number, to ask that the A-G consider a sentence and I strongly suspect that this A-G would only submit an application for review because the press and a lot of the public complained, and that it would get nowhere if made. As a manslaughter, it is a pretty low level one. Hard to see how the sentence could be seen as in the category of 'unduly lenient' by the Court of Appeal.
it is odd that some people seem to assume that newspapers (which are mostly a medium of entertainment) will present information that holds any sort of objective truth or validity.
Or that selected comments from one context will necessarily reflect a person's considered position in a slightly different context. We may not always want to read an in-depth interview, but sound-bites edited through a team of subjective wordsmiths should always be taken with a huge pinch of salt.
Perhaps 'limited intelligence' is more prevalent than we might hope.
Or that selected comments from one context will necessarily reflect a person's considered position in a slightly different context. We may not always want to read an in-depth interview, but sound-bites edited through a team of subjective wordsmiths should always be taken with a huge pinch of salt.
Perhaps 'limited intelligence' is more prevalent than we might hope.
-- answer removed --
would you in all honestly say those words to anyone. let alone a national newspaper, even remotely like those words, it's inconceivable to me. If my son had punched someone that caused their death, i would be the first to condemn him out of hand, i can't see anyone in their right mind defending him, the only reason you would if it was purely in self defence, which this most definitely wasn't. why did the man who was not the one slighted feel the need to lamp the man, it was the cyclist who was being admonished for cycling on the pavement.
A thug who caused the death of an innocent bystander.
A thug who caused the death of an innocent bystander.
Latest Posts
ChatterBank46 mins ago
Crosswords57 mins ago
ChatterBank84 mins ago
ChatterBank91 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.