If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Options
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
Judge John Reddihough, who passed the sentence.
His summing up :
Indeed. Which is why it's a good thing that justice has prevailed, again.
It's simply not acceptable to beat the shit out of someone, or shoot them in the back, because they have committed a crime against you.
That's what the Police are for.
(And yes, you can read that in more than one way )
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1237390/Thug-Walid-Salem-boasts-untouchable-householder-tormented-jailed.html
What does it matter?
Yes it does .. some people might be interested to know what the convictions were for .. for all you knew from the very first post he was convicted 50+ times for mail fraud, or just shoplifting, or speeding, etc
If you don't care then good for you but some people might have a passing interest to know what sort of things he did in the past and how much time he spend in and out of jail over that time.
In the USA some states have the 3 Strikes and you're out rule - if that rule was inthe UK this man would have been in prison and none of this would ever have happened in the first place .. so YES it does matter.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_strikes_law
You started this topic with the view that Hussain going to prison was a miscarriage of justice. It wasn't. He fully deserves his sentance.
The other blokes criminal history is another issue. Maybe he should have been locked up sooner and for longer, but that doesn't mean Hussain is any more justified in what he did.
And if you reread my very first post I specifically referred to the criminal and asked why was he even allowed to be roaming the streets ...
If you're not interested in the details of the guy with over 50 convictions then stop posting in this thread. Some people might be and for them I posted the extra information I came across ..
I'm not aware of anyone here whose arguing that what happened was a tragedy and could have probably been prevented if the people were responsible were in jail. But clearly, given the way this case is being used as a political football, the debate is going to concern the wider issues than just one point that everyone agrees on.
He asked the question did it matter? and I said YES and gave the reason why I believe it matters ..
I simply posted a link that gave the details of what those 50+ convictions were for - I'm sure many people are interested to know and as I have shown in other countries this man would have been in jail and as such none of these circumstances would have occurred in the same exact way because he wouldn't have be out in the public to begin with.
When I posted the link detailing what those 50+ convictions were for - I did not express any further opinions, or make any further statements. I just gave the new information and simply provided a link to the source. Nothing more and nothing less.
It would appear Skive took it upon himself to read something into it more then it was - i.e. the provision of further information which was not known at the time I made my very first post and which is of interest to some people.
Skive asked a simple question "Does it Matter" and he got a detailed answer ... it appeared he wasn't happy that someone even dare answer him and so he started to tell that person (myself) what was on their own minds... which he has no way of knowing.
If he wants to state facts then that's great
If he wants to provide his own opinions of what he thinks, then that great as well.
.. but if he wants to tell other people what is in their own minds then that's just plain rude.
to quote Skive
Skive appears to be telling me what is on my mind .. which he couldn;t know...
Skive has stated that I started this topic with the view Hussain going to prison was a miscarriage of justice...
Not once in the first post have I mentioned Hussain, a miscarriage of justice or anything else to do with Hussain .. I provided a link to the article ... I stated the facts of the case (that the person with 50+ convictions goes free whilst the other person goes to jail for 30 months), I stated what some people might think, and I asked the question Why a man with over 50+ convictions even on the street to begin with ...
Not once have I even mention Hussain in that first post .. so I consider Skive's post both personally rude to tell me the contents of my own mind and inaccurate.
My original post was not about a miscarriage of justice it was about Why a man with 50+ convictions is roaming the streets in the first place and not inside a prison cell.
The only opinion I have stated in my first post is
"Someone with that many convictions should be permanently tagged with a tracker at the very least so they can be watched 24/7"
'British Justice Does it again - jails the victim and free's the crimminal'
But as far as the body of my first posts goes my mind totally boggles when I even hear that someone with 50+ convictions is anywhere but in jail .. I was more then curious to know what sort of crimes they were ... once I found that information I simply posted a link to it so others who might be interested could see for themselves ..
I was.
Actually you refered to Hussain as the victim and Salem as the crimminal.
From your 1st and 2nd posts it's clear you don't consider Hussain to be anything but the victim, and therefore took it that you thought the prison sentance wasn't deserved i.e it was a miscarriage of justice.
At no point in the thread have you recognised that fact that Hussain also comitted a crimminal act and that Salem was also a victim.
You went as far to say that in the US Hussain would have probably got a 'pat on the back', and I took that to mean that's the outcome you would have liked (why else mention it?)
However, can anyone here honestly say that they would have acted differently?
You come home, your wife and kids have been held hostage, threatened with a knife (which you probably assume the assailant has every intention of using if you don't do what he says), he tries to escape, you catch him. I can honestly say that if that had happened to me, I would also want to punish the fucker something fierce, including trying to clear the square leg boundary with his head.
This article in the Times sums up my feelings:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article6962804.ece
Basically, if he knew that the justice system would punish him adequately, perhaps he might have been restrained. However, since we know that he probably would have got an impotent sentance, only would have served half of it, and would have been back to his old ways so fast it would make your head spin, perhaps Mr Hussain thought that it was best to teach the fucker a lesson.
I don't condone what he did. But then again, I'm saying that in a rational state of mind. I don't condone it, but I imagine if I were in the same situation, it would take every ounce of my strength and will power not to want to do the same thing.
It has to be a custodial sentance for me. Vigilantism has to be punished severely otherwise the whole rule of law collapses.
No. I may well have done the same. Doesn't mean I'd have been right. I don't really see that as an argument.
Yet you argue that Hussain should have got a suspended sentance? Sounds a little hypocritical to me.
Salem should have faced tougher punishments for his numerous crimes before this case, but I don't think that should have any bearing on the sentance for the crime Hussain commited.
Please explain the thinking behind that...
I would certainly be tempted to beat the shit out of any burglar if I was in the same situation, but a more sensible option would be to restrain the burglar until the police came. Good on Munir for tackling the guy, but he should have put a bit more thought into the potential consequenses of beating the man to the point where he was brain damaged.
Until his most recent offence he's never actually hurt anybody. He's just a sticky fingered twat.
Yes he deserves prison because he obviously can't keep his hands to himself, but the other guy went completely over the top. He wasn't defending himself or his family, he was getting revenge. Ultimately he was convicted by a jury of his peers, who obviously didn't believe he was defending himself either.
Officer, I think you are misunderstanding the facts.
He did not claim to be defending himself. He claimed not to be present when the offence took place.
His defence was a factual one, and not a legal one, which leads me to believe that he has no grounds for appeal. Unless,of course, he could somehow show that all the witnessses against him were unreliable.
With hindsight, based on public support of sorts, he may well be of the opinion that he should have admitted the offence and then claimed self defence. Assuming, of course, that he did actually commit the offfence.
Someone already pointed that out to me. Him claiming to have not even have been there just makes him look even worse.
however smashing someone's head in with a cricket bat is close enough to attempted murder so yeh, they got what they deserve
loooks like the burgular avoided prison cause they're now suffering severe brain damage so can't have their medical needs met by a prison....
Of course that's what should have happened, but that's in the cold light of day speaking as a rational being. I think it would be very hard to restrain him, having just seen him threaten your wife and kids with a knife. I'd personally want to give the fucker some punishment.
But in this case he was running away and they chased him, got him to the floor, and then beat him. Would that be ok if it was a 13 year old punk stealing fags from a co op? Of course not. So the only difference is, the crime seems more justifiable if the victim is unlikeable. I'm sure people wouldn't cry if it was a peadophile caught and then beat within an inch of his life.
But that's not how the law works and no amount of moaning changes that. Unless you want to bring in defence under the law that it was a crime of passion. But then if a jealous husband murders his wife if he discovers she was cheating on him, the law would have to reflect he was 'upset' and so not completely culpable for his actions.
You either have absolute responsibility for your actions or you don't, if you don't then you really open the floodgates because then what crimes do you take responsibility for? A guy in a pub hits someone with a glass... well, he was drunk for one and pissed off for two because the music was crap. It becomes impossible to administer any sense of law.
That isn't justice, that is revenge and you should never get the two mixed up.
For a householder to be convicted they have to stand in front of a jury and come off worse than an intruder - that has to be difficult. I trust juries to understand 'reasonable force' even if the Mail seems to deliberately misunderstand it.