Home Politics & Debate

Woman attacked with bleach for asking kids to be quiet in cinema

2

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    The 1996 and 2001 riots in Bradford were both as a result of police clamping down on thuggish scum in those communities.

    I'm sorry but that's just not true - the factors and timeline of incidents leading to those particular disturbances, and others in that wave the across the north, were far more detailed and complex than that.

    The 2001 disturbance mainly occurred because of confrontation and confusion relating to the National Front and the Anti-Nazi league, which culminated in a fight outside The Globe pub. There were then back and forth attacks between communities.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Whowhere
    Scum is too pleasant a term for filth like this. In an ideal world, all sorts of things would happen to them. In reality they'll plead about how bad their lives are, their parents will blame everyone else and they'll be released on suspended sentences.

    True - and this is where 'excuse' and 'explain' need to be seriously seperated.

    And the amount of time and resources that are put into youth services, the focus is far too much on tailoring to the needs of the errant minority.

    Example - youth clubs. My aunt used to work at one on a Southampton estate (where she lived), and many local kids used to come - some little scroats from uncaring families but they weren't the majority. Yes, they took up a disproportionate amount of time but the difference was that they weren't sectioned off into a massive core of bad attitudes - they were mixed in with 'regular' kids.

    Same estate, different time - now the youth club is basically seen as an extension of the youth offending team, and the 'regular' kids don't go there...
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Flashman


    OK so how'd you work this one out:confused: - this I've really gotta hear...

    1) A group of facist murderers attack a police station, with the aim of seriously curtailing the right to life of everyone in it (as they had done several times previously, including coup de grace's to the seriously injured). Their murderous ways are finished by the SAS. Do Amnesty congratulate those who stopped a nasty murder gang or do they whine about how the soldiers shouldn't have killed them?

    2) Spend years whining about human rights abuses in Iraq, about how Saddam tortuted and murdered his political opponents. When someone decides to do something does Amnesty show any support or do they suddenly decide torture and murder are less important than the income disparity between the west and Africa.

    3) Claim everyone has a right to a fair trial and that you should only be jailed for crimes you have committed - up until its a peeler or a soldier in the dock and then they scream in horror when they're acquitted; it seems to Amnesty as long as you were wearing the same uniform you ought to be in jail.

    4) Has a horrible habit of equating the lawful execution of murder rapists in the US (and to a lesser extent other countries) with people being dragged away by various dictators because they have a political differences.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    This country is just getting so tied up in being politically correct etc. that forces of law and other such public figures are afraid to either stand up as examples, or impose law on criminal scum. So-called "low-level" crime is tolerated, but it's the low-level crime that breeds attitudes like this, attitudes that think that bleaching someone is suitable "retaliation" for being told off for something that they shouldn't have been doing in the first place. Shite.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    The 2001 disturbance mainly occurred because of confrontation and confusion relating to the National Front and the Anti-Nazi league, which culminated in a fight outside The Globe pub. There were then back and forth attacks between communities.

    Did it bollocks. The NF were turned back at Bradford Interchange and, without anyone to fight and in response to earlier arrests, parts of the Pakistani community decided to go and set fire to the city.

    I was in Bradford city centre, doing some shopping, when it kicked off.

    The official report about the riots was a load of tosh, unnecessarily conciliatory towards the scum that burned the city and the community that protected them from the consequences.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    What a bunch of utterly loathsome cunts. They should be put into a large hole where they can't get out before the hole is filled up with bleach. We'll see how funny this mindless filth find it then.

    Totally agree with Kermit's comments. No wonder the BNP are gaining support left, right and centre.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    unnecessarily conciliatory towards the scum that burned the city and the community that protected them from the consequences.

    OK then, so the Joseph Roundtree are also part of the conspiracy with their report into disproportionate sentencing of Pakistani youths involved?

    http://www.betterbradford.org.uk/Documents/FairJusticeExecSumm%5B1%5D.pdf

    Incidentally if almost all of the national front supporters had been turned back before reaching the pub, then why does does evidence from a senior officer not confirm this?

    http://www.fairuk.org/docs/FAIR%20Bradford%20Report%202003.pdf

    Also pages 18-20 seem to indicate that the run up to this was a lot less straightforward than your evaluation would suggest.

    I'm not suggesting you don't have a point - but it doesn't seem quite as blanket as you seem to indicate.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Flashman
    1) A group of facist murderers attack a police station, with the aim of seriously curtailing the right to life of everyone in it (as they had done several times previously, including coup de grace's to the seriously injured). Their murderous ways are finished by the SAS. Do Amnesty congratulate those who stopped a nasty murder gang or do they whine about how the soldiers shouldn't have killed them?

    2) Spend years whining about human rights abuses in Iraq, about how Saddam tortuted and murdered his political opponents. When someone decides to do something does Amnesty show any support or do they suddenly decide torture and murder are less important than the income disparity between the west and Africa.

    3) Claim everyone has a right to a fair trial and that you should only be jailed for crimes you have committed - up until its a peeler or a soldier in the dock and then they scream in horror when they're acquitted; it seems to Amnesty as long as you were wearing the same uniform you ought to be in jail.

    4) Has a horrible habit of equating the lawful execution of murder rapists in the US (and to a lesser extent other countries) with people being dragged away by various dictators because they have a political differences.

    Ok, so the original claim was that "I always love when people mention Amnesty and Human Rights in the same sentence - Amnesty have about as much interest in human rights as the pope has in becoming an abortionist."

    1) Don't know what you're referring to here - sounds like a northern ireland incident perhaps but you'd have to tell me what it is you are talking about.

    2) Two things about this - the 'years whining' was not just that, it was positive action, evidence gathering and bringing attention to individual abuses.

    Second, it is absolutely ridiculous to claim that Amnesty would have been hypocritical for opposing Saddam and not supporting the Iraq invasion. The Iraq war resulted in far greater violations of human rights than was going on under Saddam - the Iraq war was a massive violation of the human rights of Iraqis, not least due to the massive damage to infrastructure, the masses of skilled workers who fled, and of course, the huge civillian death toll.

    3) Again a ridiculous caricature, quoting no specific cases or evidence, even in the face of the fact that (as has recently been observed in other threads) even when police are found liable for actual incidents of unlawful killing - like the woman who was wrapped in a body belt and gagged with 15 feet of tape until she suffocated.

    Police regularly get away with things civilians wouldn't, because their colleagues cover up for their own. The Met is regularly exposed telling outright porkies to the public, or trying to smear people - like de Menezes.

    4) Again you don't cite anything so I'm not sure what you are talking about.

    In general terms anyway, anyone with a single minute understanding of the work of Amnesty would realise that your original statement is empty, dismissive and not tenable.

    Yes, there are certain things about Amnesty that perhaps are unbalanced - a more representative such criticism would be that they tend to report more on violations within countries in Western Europe than, say Burma, when you compare the number, severity and scope of abuses expected in each area.

    The response to this is that they respond to what they can see, and readily admit (if one takes the trouble to investigate such things) that it is a hallmark of states like the US and Britain that the information is available to track these cases in the first place.

    They also rightly claim that there is no conflict in drawing attention to human rights abuses within democratic societies, because the exercise of doing this strengthens and maintains this state of affairs.

    The point remains that your original statement, en bloc, is not tenable. I regularly get involved with campaigns, the most recent of which was on rape as a weapon of war, and the paltry little I can do from where I am I do - like lots of other supporters I know, because we DO care about these issues, and as Amnesty supporters represent and embody these concerns.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Kermit wrote: »
    A friend of mine, a criminal law solicitor, made a good point to me: remove the welfare state from them and they'll just stab more people to get money. Not something I'd really considered, but at the same time if they do that you can sling them in prison for a very very long time.
    As simple as that sounds, it's what happens in America, and it does nothing to solve their massive crime problem despite having more people in prison than any western country. You'd think they'd locked all the criminals up by now.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    As simple as that sounds, it's what happens in America, and it does nothing to solve their massive crime problem despite having more people in prison than any western country. You'd think they'd locked all the criminals up by now.

    Which was Regan's thinking, continued under Bush I and promoted in academic circles by the rapid ascent of Charles Murray and his thesis about the origins of the underclass. He argued that yanking benefits would make everything tickty-boo, and I'm afraid it hasn't HOWEVER it has done what he said it would do, which is create a vibrant entrepreneurial class - they're called drug dealers.

    In the first of this year's Reith Lectures there was a good point made about how we've moved from being a market economy, to a market society - where decisions that used to rest on norms, values and moral judgements made in relation to other humans has been colonised by the logic of markets.

    There's a persuasive and suprisingly well empirically supported argument to show the limits of where and how market and moral agency can operate effectively.

    Sadly, the one the Thatcher/Regan consensus was brilliant at undermining communitarian values and strength, despite all the empty rhetoric from on high about morals.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    As simple as that sounds, it's what happens in America, and it does nothing to solve their massive crime problem despite having more people in prison than any western country. You'd think they'd locked all the criminals up by now.



    The advantages of their system however are obvious. If you do something horrific like throw bleach on someone, you will never leave prison. They have so many prisoners because they have the bollocks to keep people locked away. It may not deter people, but it goes a long way to keeping the rest of us safe.

    Look at small towns in the USA, they're virtually crime free. Small towns here are just as bad as the cities.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    OK then, so the Joseph Roundtree are also part of the conspiracy with their report into disproportionate sentencing of Pakistani youths involved?

    I don't think it's a conspiracy, I just think that people were too scared of appearing racist to really slate the Pakistani and Bangladeshi community in the way that should have happened.

    Just look at the flack Ann Cryer, MP for Keighley, received for daring to suggest that a) sending kids back to Pakistan and Bangladesh for six months at a time was damaging, b) that these kids were being forced into marriage whilst there and c) that this just imports poverty. Ann Cryer is a very good MP and probably the most fair and reasonable MP around, at least in terms of community relations.

    As for the 'disproprortionate sentencing', my personal belief is that most of the sentences were actually far too lenient. The scum who rioted should still be in prison now, and they're not.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Whowhere wrote: »

    Look at small towns in the USA, they're virtually crime free. Small towns here are just as bad as the cities.
    I'm not quite sure about small towns in the US being virtually crime free, but in any event, and without bothering to pull out figures right now, it is my understanding that crime in the US is significantly worse than in the UK. Despite harsher penalties, ludicrously high incarceration rates and the death penalty.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/west_yorkshire/8181052.stm
    Youth charged over bleach attack
    A 16-year-old boy has been charged with wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm after a woman was attacked with bleach in Leeds.

    The 46-year-old woman was attacked after asking a group of youths to be quiet during a showing of the new Harry Potter film.

    The boy was arrested by West Yorkshire Police following the incident in the city's Kirkstall Road on 26 July.

    He is due to appear before Leeds Magistrates' Court later.

    Another youth was arrested on Saturday, but has been released on police bail, pending further inquiries.

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    The advantages of their system however are obvious. If you do something horrific like throw bleach on someone, you will never leave prison. They have so many prisoners because they have the bollocks to keep people locked away. It may not deter people, but it goes a long way to keeping the rest of us safe.

    Look at small towns in the USA, they're virtually crime free. Small towns here are just as bad as the cities.

    Yeah I'd be careful with the American comparison.

    While it is true that they generally have higher sentencing tariffs they also have ridiculous things like mandatory minimum sentences for minor drug use. Under Bush I the USA became the world's most prolific incarcerator, mostly due to the war on drugs.

    Meanwhile, back on the thread topic;

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/west_yorkshire/8181052.stm

    There is also a massive economic elements to this - the private prison industry is massive in america, just huge - there are towns where something like 60% of the working age population are directly dependent upon the prisons for income - there's a big interest in keeping them filled with fresh meat.

    There's also the problem that those non-violent offenders (such as drug users) who get sent to prison don't often come out as such, having in many, many cases been brutalised by the regime.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Yeah I'd be careful with the American comparison.

    While it is true that they generally have higher sentencing tariffs they also have ridiculous things like mandatory minimum sentences for minor drug use. Under Bush I the USA became the world's most prolific incarcerator, mostly due to the war on drugs.

    Meanwhile, back on the thread topic;

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/west_yorkshire/8181052.stm

    There is also a massive economic elements to this - the private prison industry is massive in america, just huge - there are towns where something like 60% of the working age population are directly dependent upon the prisons for income - there's a big interest in keeping them filled with fresh meat.

    There's also the problem that those non-violent offenders (such as drug users) who get sent to prison don't often come out as such, having in many, many cases been brutalised by the regime.




    There are obvious disadvantages with the US system, but the benefits of keeping dangerous individuals off the streets and away from the rest of us can't be overlooked.
    It may not reform, but if it gives 99% of the population breathing space for a few years then so be it.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    It may not reform, but if it gives 99% of the population breathing space for a few years then so be it.

    Which would be great (if immoral for the 1%) if it did but it doesn't.

    And looking at percentages masks the scale of the problem.

    Well over three million people are in prison in the US.

    China has 1.5 million on best estimates, with four times the population.

    There is not a single bit of evidence that this radical rate of incarceration makes them proportionally any safer.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I'm ashamed to live in this country with shit like this.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Why should you be ashamed to live in a country like this? Its not as if the actions of a few wankers reflects the good standing nature of the vast majority of the UK's inhabitants.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    MrG wrote: »
    Why should you be ashamed to live in a country like this? Its not as if the actions of a few wankers reflects the good standing nature of the vast majority of the UK's inhabitants.

    This is a good point, people should remember that the media always makes things seem worse than they are because people will read or watch the news if it's something dramatic, so they have a vested interest in making it seem as bad as possible.

    It would be boring if they just told it how it was.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Even if it was as bad as the media portrays, its still not everybody.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Which would be great (if immoral for the 1%) if it did but it doesn't.

    Whilst I might agree with most things you write, this isn't one.

    How is locking up a violent person for a long period of time immoral????

    I'm afraid when morals and humanity come into it, anyone who does something as despicable as this, for no reason deserves nothing in the way of compassion or morality from us. I have no problem with leaving someone like this in prison for 10 years, if that makes me immoral then fine.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Whilst I might agree with most things you write, this isn't one.

    How is locking up a violent person for a long period of time immoral????

    Yar I made a boo boo there and forgot to add a vital bit - what I meant to add was to link this explicitly with the adjoining comment about having blanket and repressive laws that would lead to this.

    What I should have said was that I would agree with you only if you reduced that 1% of long term locking ups to reflect the number who are violent offenders, which is way lower than the proportion locked up in the US.

    For absolute clarity I am broadly in favour of reducing the number of custodial sentences handed out for non-violent offenders, but in the UK context increasing and enforcing the tariffs for violent offences, simply to give people some peace.

    sorry for any confusion
    I'm afraid when morals and humanity come into it, anyone who does something as despicable as this, for no reason deserves nothing in the way of compassion or morality from us. I have no problem with leaving someone like this in prison for 10 years, if that makes me immoral then fine.

    I agree, with one qualification that we owe a base level of human rights to everyone, but mostly this extends to not using cruel or unusual punishments which we as just people ourselves would seek to eradicate. We owe this not to the person per se, but to ourselves in terms of the society we seek to create by condemning and acting against this persons behaviour.

    My take on this particular - if found guilty and with no SERIOUS other considerations (i.e: schizophrenic episode) I'm totally in favour of this bastard little scroat going to prison for ten years and staying there.

    On the estate where I did my research the local shits sing to the police when they turn up:

    'NFA, NFA, NFA...'

    (for those who don't know that's apparently police radio shorthand for 'No Further Action' - they know they're going to get away with it).
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Its a thread from the dead, but a recent developement.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/west_yorkshire/8406317.stm
    BBC wrote:
    A teenager has admitted pouring bleach over a woman after she asked him to be quiet in a Leeds cinema.

    The city's crown court heard Annette Warden, 46, was "terrified" when the 16-year-old boy squirted the liquid over her head in a restaurant in July.

    Mrs Warden had earlier asked a group of youths to be quiet as she watched a Harry Potter film with her family.

    The teenager admitted causing actual bodily harm. He denies attempting to cause grievous bodily harm with intent.

    A jury was told Mrs Warden was having a meal with her husband and two children, on 26 July this year, when she was attacked at the Frankie and Benny's restaurant, near the cinema.
  • SkiveSkive No discipline. No morality. No respect. New ForestPosts: 15,170 Skive's The Limit
    its harldy anything new. I remember as a kid other kids carrying around amonia and using it to attack one another.
    Yesterday is history
    Tomorrow is a mystery
    But today is a gift
    That’s why it’s call the present
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    why do kids carry bleach with them?
    Skive wrote: »
    its harldy anything new. I remember as a kid other kids carrying around amonia and using it to attack one another.

    :lol: how do you attack someone with ammonia anyway? As long as you don't get it in the eyes it's rather harmless.
  • SkiveSkive No discipline. No morality. No respect. New ForestPosts: 15,170 Skive's The Limit
    i can tell you it isnt harmless. It burns.
    Yesterday is history
    Tomorrow is a mystery
    But today is a gift
    That’s why it’s call the present
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    how do you attack someone with ammonia anyway?

    Favorite trick of hooligan firms in the 1970s and 80s was to fill a Jif bottle with ammonia to use as makeshift pepper spray...
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/jan/11/detention-teenager-poured-bleach-woman

    So the kid has been sentenced, and am I the only one who thinks that it's totally inadequate, given the circumstances. What will happen is that he'll come out half way through, with no support, after meeting other violent & amoral arseholes in prison, and go right back to what he was doing.

    In my view the judge was right to call attention to social services' previous engagement with this person - don't get me wrong this was a callous attack that deserves a prison sentence and a substantial one. What I'm worried about is giving this kid the support to change so that he doesn't come out and do it again - which I doubt he will get.

    And one more thing; the last line;
    He was issued with a caution after the brick assault.

    If that is accurate reporting... :eek2:
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I saw this too. Appalling.
Sign In or Register to comment.