That's how you mete out justice

Discussion in 'Current Affairs' started by NotmeChief, Aug 20, 2008.

Welcome to the Navy Net aka Rum Ration

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial RN website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. A MAN was attacked and had his leg broken after attempting to abduct a seven-year-old boy in a Plymouth pub car park, a court has heard.
    James Sibley, 42, had been ordered to leave the Windmill, in Leigham, after he was seen helping a young boy put his scooter in the back of his car.

    Staff and customers saw what was happening and intervened. The landlord took the scooter out of the boot and ordered Sibley off the premises.

    But later that day Sibley returned to the Windmill for a drink. He was recognised and assaulted in the car park, suffering a broken leg.
    Prosecuting Jason Beal said: "By the time the police arrived he was lying on the floor of the car park having sustained a broken leg.
    The police haven't been able to find out who assaulted Mr Sibley."

    Mr Beal said Sibley wouldn't cooperate when asked.
    He said Sibley told police he was an Army officer on a special mission and he threatened to shoot them when they tried to search his car.

    Sibley, from Hillsboro, Woolavington, near Bridgwater, appeared at Plymouth Crown Court yesterday on the first day of his trial. He is charged with attempting to abduct the boy on October 24, 2007 and also faces two charges of possessing indecent photographs of children and one count of taking indecent photographs of a child.

    And that is how you investigate it.

    Herald Plymouth
     
  2. Re: That's how you meter out justice

    shoot the bastard!
     
  3. Re: That's how you meter out justice

    Mob rule- fantastic!
     
  4. Re: That's how you meter out justice

    BTW, the word you where lookg for in the title to this thread is mete, not meter.
     
  5. Typo duly corrected - tks
     
  6. I must admit to having a little sly giggle to myself yesterday when I read this.
     
  7. Likewise, although it was mainly about why someone would be bone enough to go back to the same pub. Something about that doesn't ring true, but people are stupid and it's probably a god indicator of the many who rarely think things through.
     
  8. I thought it was about a common assault on a person with obvious mental and social problems. And about the tacit approval of said asault by the authorities. But I suppose its easier to make the knee jerk reaction. Should have hung the nonce from a lampost!
     
  9. sgtpepperband

    sgtpepperband War Hero Moderator Book Reviewer

    Hmm, vigilante rule okay?! :roll:
     
  10. My inclination is that there is a lot more to this than is being reported, I have a hunch that he was brought back to the pub, rather than went back, allowing a vigilante style response.

    But it's easier for the media to pander to their readership, and in this type of situation that readership is going to overwhelmingly support the action.

    We are, ostensibly, a democratic state, governed by a rule of law. I find it interesting to note those who at the same time as advocating ever increasing scope creep of our legal framework will quite happily sanction overt breaches of the same framework.

    Notwithstanding that, in this case I find the story raises a smile. Perhaps my previous point wasn't well made; we're expected to believe that he went back to the same place? There may or may not be tacit approval from the police, but I find it equally hard to believe that if anything started in the car park that they were actually called in until it had already finished, they are unlikely to have had the opportunity to arrive beforehand.
     
  11. sgtpepperband

    sgtpepperband War Hero Moderator Book Reviewer

    Yeah, I can just see it now - cops saying to themselves: "I know, I'll jeopardise my job/pension/credibility just so some assumed-guilty member of the public is given a kicking while I sit here and wait for them to finish..."

    :oops:
     
  12. They've come up against a wall of silence and a suspect thats been told to keep shtum.

    Thing is, they know this and are (more or less) happy with the state of affairs, as am I to be honest.
    If that was MY son out playing and someone was seen trying to get him into his car AFTER putting the scooter into the boot, I'd be buying a round in that pub ;)
     
  13. I'll second that Lammers :thumright:
     
  14. We both know that neither of us would allow a 7yo to play unattended in a pub car park all day. No mention of any parenting, responsible or otherwise in the article. Apparently its OK to sanction the assualt of an obviously deranged loser, but not to suggest that the child could have been better supervised. Where were the parents? Pishing up in a nearby Tapas bar? :thumright:
     
  15. Being a gullible sod I'd have assumed the child was lost and he was taking him home. Assuming this is the case, then fracturing his leg was wrong. I confess to having rather too much sympathy with taking vigilante action: I think a couple of broken legs, ribs and nose would be a far better remedy than imprisonment, however....

    As Karma has rightly said, a democratic society is based on the rule-of-law principle rather than arbitrary "justice". Although arbitrary justice can retain a degree of cohesiveness in society, as we saw with Nazi Germany and Communist Russia, etc, it bodes ill as it promotes a cynical view of justice and ultimately those in power, as chroniclers observed following the occupation and subjugation of Britain by the Normans after 1066.

    The real issues here are, as pointed out earlier, where were the boy's parents? Why did THEY render him vulnerable to apparent adduction? Why are some men and women sexually attracted to children? Or sheep for that matter?
     
  16. Seaweed

    Seaweed War Hero Book Reviewer

    Respect for the Rule of Law depends on the Law being there when the citizen needs it, and its being seen to protect the law-abiding citizen, and protecting him from villains by putting them out of circulation. The Law forfeits respect when it is seen as penalizing those who only try to protect their own or their family's persons and property.

    The current situation seems to be that, if one can get the police to take a timely interest in the first place, there is still only a low chance of detection; for those crimes detected, a low chance of conviction rather than let-outs like cautions; for those convicted, zero chance of a realistic deterrent sentence; and for the victim, no realistic chance of compensation or restitution, instead harrassment, embarrassment and inconvenience with a high chance of his personal details being handed over to the villain or even the press.
     
  17. Once there is no respect for the law - chaos rules! Then nobody is safe and the crimes that do get detected, then wouldn't be and villians who are punished etc would get a free hand to do as they please. Thats not what I want - but then I'm prepared to put the uniform on and get off my backside and do something about it rather than whinging.
     
  18. Instead of a broken leg couldn't the person have really stamped on his nuts instead?
    Eunuchs of the world unite,you have nothing to lose!
    Depise these bastards and they should all be castrated'when convicted.
     
  19. Thirded :thumright:
     
  20. Four'thd - especially as I am now a dad,
     

Share This Page