Chef Wendy v Leeds

Leroy Ambrose said:

We had a discussion at work a couple of months ago about a 'most hated XI'. Some obvious ones picked by people, some less obvious ones - but there were only three universal choices, and Diouf was one of them. Hateful little shitbag.

Was Barton the other? And Lee Hughes?

Thats where we're different, complete 'wrongun' behaviour in my eyes hoping someone who goes to football etc does time.

Wouldn't like to be in the company of the people on here who revel in being such 'upstanding members of their community reporting people to the police though.

Opinions are opinions though, everyones entitled to one...

What we need is more public burnings that would stop the bastards.

SE10 said:

...complete 'wrongun' behaviour in my eyes hoping someone who goes to football etc does time...

So, is going to football some sort of magic talisman that stops people facing up to their social responsibilities and gives them immunity from punishment when they commit a crime?

He's hardly smoking in the toilets is he. Think this kind of stuff needs to get reported and the bloke banned from coming to football again.

ValleyGary said:

SE10 said:

Thats where we're different, complete 'wrongun' behaviour in my eyes hoping someone who goes to football etc does time.

Wouldn't like to be in the company of the people on here who revel in being such 'upstanding members of their community reporting people to the police though.

Opinions are opinions though, everyones entitled to one...

ay? so you think that bloke dont deserve to get in trouble because it happened at football?

if you acted like that in the street then people that saw it would report it too the police wouldnt they???

It was on TV, let the police do their job and catch him without all the phoning them and sticking his details on the net and boasting that you have.

SE10 said:

Stig said:

SE10 said:

...complete 'wrongun' behaviour in my eyes hoping someone who goes to football etc does time...

So, is going to football some sort of magic talisman that stops people facing up to their social responsibilities and gives them immunity from punishment when they commit a crime?

Personally, I'm more worried about paedophiles, rapists, terrorists and burgurlars than some tit who had probably been drinking/on the gear all day running on a pitch and pushing a player in the face.

Fair do's, ban him but no need for sticking his details up and phoning the police when it had just been on tv while hoping he does a 4 stretch instead of a real scumbag on the streets.

Sorry SE10 but I'm not following the logic here. I agree with you that we should be concerned about "paedophiles, rapists, terrorists and burglars", but does that mean that we choose to ignore other crimes that we consider to be less important. Surely someone's either committed a criminal act or not. If they have, such as the violent assault in this case, they should be dealt with appropriately. And if people have information that will help catch them it should be reported to the authorities. Perhaps if everyone did that, it might free up some police time that could be used to help catch more serious criminals. I don't see this as an either/or scenario; the police are duty bound to deal with this bloke so congratulations to those that have helped make their job easier.

I don't know about wanting him to do "a 4 stretch", but I do want this guy punished and that punishment needs to be a step up from a banning order. He's been banned before, has broken bans before, and has not learned any lesson from that. It's not up to me to decide what that punishment should be, his case needs to be heard be a judge or magistrate and if found guilty (it's difficult to see how he wouldn't be) he should be punished in the most appropriate manner be that prison, a fine, community service or something else.

Henry Irving said:

Cawley got four months after pleaawwley shoulkd have got ding guilty this morning in magistrates court

This sentence is far too lenient. He'll be out in 2 months and will be a hero in the eyes of thousands of Leeds' 'fans', probably some will try to out-do him.
The sentence should have been a message sending one. If you invade private premises and assault someone inside those premises, that is burglary, allied to common assault and actual bodily harm, and for being a completely arrogant no good c88t .. Cawley should have got 30 months in a high security prison

Lincsaddick said:

Henry Irving said:

Cawley got four months after pleaawwley shoulkd have got ding guilty this morning in magistrates court

This sentence is far too lenient. He'll be out in 2 months and will be a hero in the eyes of thousands of Leeds' 'fans', probably some will try to out-do him.
The sentence should have been a message sending one. If you invade private premises and assault someone inside those premises, that is burglary, allied to common assault and actual bodily harm, and for being a completely arrogant no good c88t .. Cawley should have got 30 months in a high security prison

I bet the judge would have loved to give him more but can only give him the range from his guidelines. I think by him pleading guilty would mean the judge already has to take 1/3 off the starting point.

Henry Irving said:

Cawley got four months after pleading guilty this morning in magistrates court

Good to see that it was dealt with so quickly.

Lincsaddick said:

roseandcrown said:

Lincsaddick said:

Henry Irving said:

Cawley got four months after pleaawwley shoulkd have got ding guilty this morning in magistrates court

This sentence is far too lenient. He'll be out in 2 months and will be a hero in the eyes of thousands of Leeds' 'fans', probably some will try to out-do him.
The sentence should have been a message sending one. If you invade private premises and assault someone inside those premises, that is burglary, allied to common assault and actual bodily harm, and for being a completely arrogant no good c88t .. Cawley should have got 30 months in a high security prison

I bet the judge would have loved to give him more but can only give him the range from his guidelines. I think by him pleading guilty would mean the judge already has to take 1/3 off the starting point.

That's the thing .. the case didn't get to the Crown Court where harsher penalties are available. The CPS have taken the easy way out as usual. He should have been committed to C Court and remanded in custody

The max sentence for assault is 6 months which is he highest sentence the magistrate can give out, it would not be worth them sending it to the crown. You good argue the law is to soft but that's a different topic.

Goonerhater said:

The justice system is all over the show has been for decades.
he gets 2 months
some nut who swims into the boat race gets 6 months
A judge says scum bag brglers are heroic
hold your hand up to 310 muggings and burgleries --slapped wrist

The Boy Dave is speaking about this as i type----its pure and utter deflection----have no intrest in what he says as it wont change a thing.

That says it all, They guy got 6 months for jumping in the river and then this guy gets 4 months for hitting/pushing someone. But you could also argue if the guy had done that in the street and not at football he would have got a fine and community service.

roseandcrown said:

Lincsaddick said:

roseandcrown said:

Lincsaddick said:

Henry Irving said:

Cawley got four months after pleaawwley shoulkd have got ding guilty this morning in magistrates court

This sentence is far too lenient. He'll be out in 2 months and will be a hero in the eyes of thousands of Leeds' 'fans', probably some will try to out-do him.
The sentence should have been a message sending one. If you invade private premises and assault someone inside those premises, that is burglary, allied to common assault and actual bodily harm, and for being a completely arrogant no good c88t .. Cawley should have got 30 months in a high security prison

I bet the judge would have loved to give him more but can only give him the range from his guidelines. I think by him pleading guilty would mean the judge already has to take 1/3 off the starting point.

That's the thing .. the case didn't get to the Crown Court where harsher penalties are available. The CPS have taken the easy way out as usual. He should have been committed to C Court and remanded in custody

The max sentence for assault is 6 months which is he highest sentence the magistrate can give out, it would not be worth them sending it to the crown. You good argue the law is to soft but that's a different topic.

That is my point, the charge could and should have been burglary .. maximum 14 years .. read the theft act 1968 .. cawley is guilty of burglary