Some people should die for their crimes.

[Fnoop]

While you may not like how the Daily Mail put things across, the facts are all there in black and white and the outcome of this is a disgrace.

[Saracen]

While you may not like how the Daily Mail put things across, the facts are all there in black and white and the outcome of this is a disgrace.

Perhaps.

But there's an old saying .... the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Even if what is said is the truth, we don't know it's the whole truth. And presentation also affects perception. One of the cleverest ways to 'lie' is to tell the absolute truth in such a way as to deliberately give the impression that you are lying, thereby misleading people away from realising that you really are.

[nibbler]

Nobody should die for their crimes. It's the easy way out, and it's morally not a defensible position.

[Sputnik]

Just give them frontal lobotomies and castration like the old days. That would quieten them down a bit.

[scaryjim]

While you may not like how the Daily Mail put things across, the facts are all there in black and white ...

Yes, the ringleader was jailed for more than 2 years (for 2 offences, the second committed whilst on bail for the first ). His two mates, who "joined in" with the second attack, have lighter sentences, but then they were not involved in the first incident. Of those, one has a suspended sentence and if he ends up in court again in the next 12 months he will go to jail for this offence, in addition to his sentence for that other offence, and the other has a 12 month community service order for the somewhat lesser offence of affray.

So, one thug in jail*, one under the doom of damocles (for at least the next year), and one doing unpaid community work for only getting minimally involved.I'm sure they're not the maximum sentences available, but they're also not insigificant. Plus, all three have criminal records, which is actually a much bigger deal than most people realise. This is a long way from them being "let off"...


*incidentally, whilst we're discussing the Mail's reporting of the incident, it's worth mentioning that they don't mention O'Neill until the very end of the story, and then only in passing. In fact, the main body of the story doesn't even mention that there was a third person involved in the attack - it clearly and deliberately implies that Chrapowski and Lane were the main antagonists, and that their punishment was the only one meted out for this crime. Incredibly disingenuous, when the judge, commenting on sentencing, says:

in particular I bear in mind that O’Neill was responsible for significant bodily harm.

Read that carefully, so you can take in the full implication: the other two got lighter sentences because the judge considered O'Neill to be the main antagonist in the attack - significantly so. Then compare that to the Mail's mention of him in their story (4 sentences from the end of the article):

A third man, Oliver O’Neill, 23, from Bramhall – who was on bail for another vicious attack at the time of the assault on Mr O’Reilly – was jailed for 27 months after admitting two counts of GBH.

That's it. The entire mention, by the Daily Mail, of the man the sentencing judge considered was the main offender in the attack. Fair and balanced reporting? I think not.

[TheAnimus]

I find this a good example of how newspapers often distort the facts to their own agenda.
The Mail article glossed over the fact that someone went down for that crime, and at first glance made it appear that they all got away without punishment.


The Manchester Evening News gave a better, more balanced report:

Bramhall thug jailed for attacks on Good Samaritans near Piccadilly station
http://menmedia.co.uk/manchestereven...adilly-station

Now go back and read the Daily Mail article, and see the difference:

Thugs 1 Justice 0: Portrait of a violent yob who assured a judge he was full of remorse
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ping-jail.html

While you may not like how the Daily Mail put things across, the facts are all there in black and white and the outcome of this is a disgrace.

Do you really not see that problem with your post, after reading mikerr's?

[blueball]

While you may not like how the Daily Mail put things across, the facts are all there in black and white and the outcome of this is a disgrace.

Its not a case of not liking how the Daily Mail puts things across; it's a case of not being gullible enough to believe the rubbish that they call journalism.

[0iD]

Compared to what some rapists, pedophiles & murders get off with sometimes....well injustice spreads far and wide. As to whether these chappies are worthy of the death penalty, well no. Harsher punishment, then yes, probably.

And we've done the death penalty debate in the past, to death

[riding moon]

Can we become vigilante's and sort this, it happens sometime's.