What do you have to do to get sent to prison?

Take a look at this scum. His name is Reece Kent, 19.

This shit beat up this gandfather.

Now you would expect Reece Kent to be sent to jail wouldn't you, but no he walks out of court with a suspended sentence.

An extract from the article;

A drunken thug who attacked a terminally-ill grandfather and kicked his head 'like a football' has walked free from court.

Reece Kent, 19, repeatedly punched Ken Oliver in the head before kicking him on the floor after he mistakenly knocked on the 62-year-old's door at 3.30am.

Cancer sufferer Mr Oliver - who has been given just three months to live - was left in a pool of blood on his doorstep with horrific injuries.

He spent a week in intensive care following the assault, with bleeding on his brain.

Kent admitted carrying out the unprovoked attack - which was filmed on a mobile phone by his friends - and pleaded guilty to grievous bodily harm.

But Mr Oliver, a grandfather-of-three from Broxbourne, Hertfordshire, watched in disbelief as his attacker walked free from court last week with a six-month suspended sentence.

What do you have to do to get sent to jail?

You're more likely to get sent to jail for not paying your council tax than for grievous bodily harm.

If there is karma in the world, i hope it comes down on Reece Kent like a ton of bricks.

Reece Kent should be sent to Afghanistan so he can see, while he is beating the crap out of a grandfather, what  our soldiers are having to go through.

What about all the soldiers from WW1 and WW2. I doubt very much that they gave their lives so we could be free, so scum like Reece Kent can beat up a grandfather.

What ever happened to 'the punishment should fit the crime',

It's all well and good the government getting to grips with the nations finances, but it better get law and order sorted as well, because I'm sick and tired of all the lawlessness i see on the streets.

The (IN) Human Rights Act and Justice

Can the European Convention on Human Rights and the justice system ever run to the same tune.

I have blogged about the human rights act here, here and here.

Now we have another example.

Illegal immigrant rapist could stay in UK

An illegal immigrant who raped a woman but was not caught for 18 years could avoid deportation because of his human rights to a family life.

An extract;

Sukdarshan Singh, an Indian, arrived in Britain unlawfully in 1984 and raped a 59-year-old woman four years later.

He was only linked to the attack in 2006 after being arrested for drink driving and was jailed for four and a half years.

An immigration tribunal ruled he should be deported but the Court of Appeal yesterday overturned the decision because it had failed to take in to account his rights to family life as he now has a British wife and two teenage children.

If this guy entered the country illegally, how was he able to legally get married?

According to the appeal court, if you enter the country illegally, commit a serious crime, get away with it for 20 years, get jailed for a very short time, you can stay in the country.

An extract

Yesterday, he was appealing against the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal (AIT) finding which upheld the decision of the Home Secretary to return him to India.

But Lord Justice Aikens said the "overall question" in the case was whether deportation would be a disproportionate interference with his private and family life protected by the European Convention on Human Rights.

Lord Justice Aikens says, 'deportation would be a disproportionate interference with his private and family life under the human rights act.'

Once again I say, what about the human rights of the victim. She was raped by this scum, but as usual the rights of the victim is second to the rights of the scum who raped her.

An extract;

He said the AIT should have balanced the threat of family breakdown, the effect on the children and feasibility of a move to India with the aim of deportation in protecting the public.

The effect on the children and feasibility of moving to India. What about the effect on the children finding out their father is a rapist.

Send the father back to India and let the kids stay in the UK.

Everyone has a human right to live and feel safe in their community and their home. If someone commits a crime they should lose certain rights.

If an illegal immigrant commits a crime then that person should be sent back to the country he came from, even if he has a family here.

People are not getting justice due to the (In) Human Rights Act.

The Judicial System is Insane

Read this headline from this article

Rapist avoids deportation so that he can marry in Britain

A convicted rapist facing deportation has won a High Court battle to be allowed to stay in the country to get married.

How in gods name can this be allowed to happen?

An extract

Alphonse Semo, a refugee from the Democratic Republic of Congo, threw his victim on a rubbish tip when he had finished with her.

But on Monday evening he won the right to remain for his wedding just hours before he was due to board a plane back to Africa.

A judge said it was difficult to have any sympathy for Semo, who was jailed for eight years, but he must be allowed to stay.

Why must he be allowed to stay?

Just because he wants to get married shouldn't be justification to let him stay in this country.

An extract;

The judge said the Home Secretary would have to reconsider later, after the marriage, whether to make a fresh attempt to deport him.

That would engage issues of EU law as his bride-to-be, Bunsana Kalonji, is a refugee from the Congo who became a German national.

The pair have a long-established relationship. Ms Kalonji is in the UK, exercising her right to work here under Community law.

Once married, the pair are expected to claim that Semo is legally entitled to remain in the UK as the spouse of an European Economic Area national entitled to free movement within EU member states, including the UK.

So once married he is legally entitled to remain in the UK and have free movement with in the EU.

Fine, just one question.

What about the rights of the woman who this scum raped.

What about the rights of the law abiding people of this country to feel safe.

Once again the criminal's rights take precedent over the victim's rights.

If this woman, really wants to marry this scum then take him to live in Germany, but I bet Germany will some how refuse him entry.

Once again we are being screwed by the EU regulations.

We used to have a justice system in this county, but due to so many new regulations and the in-human rights act it is turning into a joke.

Crime and Punishment

This is the headline to this article from Sky News

Teen Child Rapist Who Struck Again Named

Here is an extract from the article;

A teenager who was jailed for sexually assaulting a nine-year-old girl while already on bail after raping a 10-year-old girl has been named.

Why in god's name was he on bail for rape, of a 10 year old, in the first place?

What were they thinking letting a sex attacker, of young girls, out on the streets again.

Didn't they think he might attack someone else. Don't they think rape is a serious crime any more?

Another extract from the article;

On Monday, Heaton was ordered to serve a minimum of five years behind bars at Liverpool Crown Court for the "truly chilling" ordeal he subjected on his victims.

After two sex attacks, one of them a rape, they give him five, yes that's right 5 years.

He should be in jail for at the very least 15 - 20 years, before he is even up for parole.

What if he is still a danger to the public after the five years, will they still let him out?

They probably would because it will be against his (in) human rights.

This is a another extract from the article;

His identity has now been revealed after Judge David Harris QC ended a legal delay, which had been placed to ensure security could be installed to protect the boy from his prison inmates.

'Protect the boy from his prison inmates'.

The victims may not of got proper justice, but from what i have heard there is nothing like justice given out by fellow prisoners to sick twisted monsters like this scum.

Another Nail in the Coffin for Justice

A few days ago i wrote this blog about the seven muslim protesters disrupting a home coming parade by the Royal Anglian Regiment, and how they refused to stand up in court to show respect to the judge and the court.

Now the seven muslim men were found guilty.

Their punishment, a £500 fine. Which they admit we, the tax payer, will have to pay because all of them are on benefits.

You can read newspaper articles here, here and here

Here is an article of the damage they have caused to the community.

Judge Carolyn Mellanby has basically given the far right parties more ammunition and more followers to their cause.

It's not just this case, but many other criminal cases where people are found guilty of a crime and the sentence is just a joke.

Justice in this country is becoming a joke, if it isn't already.

Why weren't they charged with Contempt of Court?

If you are in a court of law and the judge walks in everyone must stand up to show respect to the court and the court officials.

If you don't you can be charged with contempt of court.

This article in the Telegraph has me wondering, how far will the judge give leeway to the accused.

Here is a quote from the article;

The accused are seven muslim men who are accused of disrupting the homecoming parade of the 2nd Battalion The Royal Anglian Regiment last March. As the soldiers paraded through the town, the men were allegedly heard to shout: “British soldiers go to hell” and “They are killing babies”. They were also allegedly seen to display placards with slogans such as “Butchers of Basra” and “Cowards, Killers, Extremists”, and so face charges under the Public Order Act.

These men live in this country and they should abide by the laws of this country. They were arrested for breaking the laws of this country and are now on trial.

Here is the quote from the article that makes you wonder what will happen in this trial;

When the case opened, the accused refused to stand for Miss Mellanby. Their religion, they argued, forbids them to stand for anybody except Allah, and they were therefore unable to show their respect for the court’s officers in the customary manner.

What do you think the judge did next;

Did she charge them with contempt of court, or change hundreds of years of common law.

What she did was arrange it so the accused men would enter the court after the judge.

Now i ask you, WHY?

The last paragraph of the article says;

It’s up to District Judge Mellanby to decide whether these men are guilty of “threatening abusive or insulting behaviour”, and we, of course, expect that she will do so in a fair and proper manner. But we should keep an eye on the case, to see if she brings in any other radical legal innovations, overturning centuries of common law, in the process.

This case does make me uneasy. If she gives in on them not standing when she enters the court what else will she do?

Crime and Punishment

Why doesn't this surprise me.

Back in June this year a judge gives a sixteen year old boy a community service order for the rape of a 7 year old boy.

A week later he abducts and rapes a five year old boy.

What in the hell was this judge thinking letting a rapist go with a community order, which is basically letting him go free and do what he like.

You can read the article here.

The following is a quote by the judge, from the article;

"I have to say I have absolutely no hesitation whatsoever in reaching the conclusion that you are indeed a dangerous offender."

The youngster was sentenced to three years four months but with time already spent in custody taken into consideration he will serve two years, 359 days before he is assessed as being safe enough to release back into the community.

The judge admits that the boy is a danger to the public, but gives him three years.

Rape of any sort is one of the most serious offences to commit against another person, even worse if it is against a child, and he is sentenced to three years. Words fail me.

The police catch him, twice, get all the evidence against him and they send it to the Crown Prosecution Service. The CPS take him to court, where he pleads guilty. The first time he is up in front of a judge he is basically set free, and the second time he is up in front of a judge he is given three years.

Do these so called judges think that rape isn't a serious crime?

I want both of the judges to go to the families of these two boys and look them in the eye and explain why they gave this sixteen year old such short sentences.

I have said it before and i will say it again the judicial system needs changing, especially the judges. We need judges who know what it is like out in the real world, not in their pampered world they live in. Get rid of the costumes they wear and drag them into the 21st century.

I feel for the two families, especially the two young boys, whose lives have been ruined. With love and support i hope they get through this nightmare and live as happy as possible.

UPDATE:

I have just found this Blog by 'The Policeman's Blog' . It goes on about the same subject.