Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
Sabina Nessa - May she RIP
Comments
-
Why would a magistrate tell me that if it wasn't true, the magistrate I mentioned earlier was one i met on holiday in Jersey who sat on the Raul Moat case, remember him. She said that they could only give him 16 weeks under the guidelines knowing he would be out in 8. And apparently he was an arsehole inside for those 8 weeks.Henry Irving said:
Again not true and nothing to do with concurrent sentences.Chippycafc said:
A magistrate once told me all sentences of 1 year or less, the prisoner is released half way through.SoundAsa£ said:
Ben……this has been going on for years!Henry Irving said:
That's not true.SoundAsa£ said:
One of the things the media rarely states is the type of sentencing.Chippycafc said:
About time the courts woke up and dished out some proper sentences.Henry Irving said:https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-61021379.amp
Life with a 36 year MINIMUM sentence which means he'll be 72 before he's even eligible for parole.
For example, they nearly always state someone as having been sentenced to (let’s say), 10 years imprisonment but actually there are normally several different charges and these length of terms can be given to serve concurrently or consecutively.
They may have 5 charges of 2 years for each one to be served concurrently.
Sounds good and a better story to imply they are going to serve 10 years when in reality they will only be inside for 2 years, with a third off for good behaviour, that’s only 16 months!
A far cry from the 10 years implied by the media.
Another example is when they sentence gang members.
”Gang members sentenced to 100 years.” Sounds like hefty sentences by the judge but the media are playing games with numbers yet again!
Once again there may be several different sentences and the sentences are to run concurrently not consecutively …...they ‘conveniently’ forget to mention that.🤨
You just need to read more than the headline
They become ELIGIBLE for release on licence half-way through their sentence if they have behaved themselves.
That applies in most cases, rightly or wrongly. It's an incentive for them to behave.
It's why, as in this case, judge sets a MINIMUM period before the prisoners is ELIGIBLE for release on licence.0 -
Because it sounds better when they are showing off in a bar on holiday in Jersey? He served a 18 week sentence.Chippycafc said:
Why would a magistrate tell me that if it wasn't true, the magistrate I mentioned earlier was one i met on holiday in Jersey who sat on the Raul Moat case, remember him. She said that they could only give him 16 weeks under the guidelines knowing he would be out in 8. And apparently he was an arsehole inside for those 8 weeks.Henry Irving said:
Again not true and nothing to do with concurrent sentences.Chippycafc said:
A magistrate once told me all sentences of 1 year or less, the prisoner is released half way through.SoundAsa£ said:
Ben……this has been going on for years!Henry Irving said:
That's not true.SoundAsa£ said:
One of the things the media rarely states is the type of sentencing.Chippycafc said:
About time the courts woke up and dished out some proper sentences.Henry Irving said:https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-61021379.amp
Life with a 36 year MINIMUM sentence which means he'll be 72 before he's even eligible for parole.
For example, they nearly always state someone as having been sentenced to (let’s say), 10 years imprisonment but actually there are normally several different charges and these length of terms can be given to serve concurrently or consecutively.
They may have 5 charges of 2 years for each one to be served concurrently.
Sounds good and a better story to imply they are going to serve 10 years when in reality they will only be inside for 2 years, with a third off for good behaviour, that’s only 16 months!
A far cry from the 10 years implied by the media.
Another example is when they sentence gang members.
”Gang members sentenced to 100 years.” Sounds like hefty sentences by the judge but the media are playing games with numbers yet again!
Once again there may be several different sentences and the sentences are to run concurrently not consecutively …...they ‘conveniently’ forget to mention that.🤨
You just need to read more than the headline
They become ELIGIBLE for release on licence half-way through their sentence if they have behaved themselves.
That applies in most cases, rightly or wrongly. It's an incentive for them to behave.
It's why, as in this case, judge sets a MINIMUM period before the prisoners is ELIGIBLE for release on licence.
And how would the magistrate know how someone behaved in prison? They don't send reports.
He was a nasty bastard and I have no sympathy for him but that's nothing to do with this.0 -
I have no reason to dis-believe her and we were out walking, not in a bar. Plus it's fairly well known that moat was wound up in prison by the prison guards who told him his gf was seeing s copper. And we were talking about ridiculous sentences hence why moat was brought up.0
-
However fair your criticism of how sentencing is applied and the way in which the press report it may be, neither are actually relevant to this case.SoundAsa£ said:
Ben……this has been going on for years!Henry Irving said:
That's not true.SoundAsa£ said:
One of the things the media rarely states is the type of sentencing.Chippycafc said:
About time the courts woke up and dished out some proper sentences.Henry Irving said:https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-61021379.amp
Life with a 36 year MINIMUM sentence which means he'll be 72 before he's even eligible for parole.
For example, they nearly always state someone as having been sentenced to (let’s say), 10 years imprisonment but actually there are normally several different charges and these length of terms can be given to serve concurrently or consecutively.
They may have 5 charges of 2 years for each one to be served concurrently.
Sounds good and a better story to imply they are going to serve 10 years when in reality they will only be inside for 2 years, with a third off for good behaviour, that’s only 16 months!
A far cry from the 10 years implied by the media.
Another example is when they sentence gang members.
”Gang members sentenced to 100 years.” Sounds like hefty sentences by the judge but the media are playing games with numbers yet again!
Once again there may be several different sentences and the sentences are to run concurrently not consecutively …...they ‘conveniently’ forget to mention that.🤨
You just need to read more than the headline
As Henry asserts, this disgraceful excuse for a human being will be behind bars for 36 years minimum, with no parole for good behaviour. He will therefore be at least 72 years old when released and even then he may not be released. So the press report attached to this thread is accurate in this case.
Whether we think 36 years is too lenient is a separate matter of course....1 -
Her family are claiming they have been treated differently due to their ethnicity, and that neither Patel or Johnson have reached out to them and the papers treated it differently not giving her the front pages .
0 -
I disagree with them about the press coverage.cafcdave123 said:Her family are claiming they have been treated differently due to their ethnicity, and that neither Patel or Johnson have reached out to them and the papers treated it differently not giving her the front pages .Several non-locals asked me about the tragedy at the time. I think it got the press attention.1 -
Sabina's sister was on the radio this morning. Unfortunately she opined that the reason her sister's murder was not publicised as much as (say) the Sarah Everard murder was due to her sister's ethnicity. The difference is and the reason behind the Everard case getting so much media coverage is surely that Sarah's murderer was a serving policeman. The interviewer did not point this possibility out to Jebina Islam, Sabina's sister, which was extremely concerning, he let the perceived racial bias aspect go without comment.
The thing is, everything in this country is not about race and/or racial discrimination. The Chancellor of the Exchequer is Asian, London has an Asian mayor, the Home and the Health Secretaries are both Asian, several other Government Cabinet secretaries and ministers are Asian or Black. This country is not institutionally racist and anyone on mainstream media, of any ethnicity claiming that it is should be taken to task over their opinion.
6 -
I didn’t think that it received any less press but I live on the kidbrooke line so it was very much a local talking point.Valiantphil said:
I disagree with them about the press coverage.cafcdave123 said:Her family are claiming they have been treated differently due to their ethnicity, and that neither Patel or Johnson have reached out to them and the papers treated it differently not giving her the front pages .Several non-locals asked me about the tragedy at the time. I think it got the press attention.
with regards to the government reaching out to them, do they do that when there is a murder? I honestly don’t know?0 -
I agree the different coverage in the media of the appalling murders of Sarah Everard and Sabina Nessa is because Sarah Everard was murdered by a serving police officer.Lincsaddick said:.Sabina's sister was on the radio this morning. Unfortunately she opined that the reason her sister's murder was not publicised as much as (say) the Sarah Everard murder was due to her sister's ethnicity. The difference is and the reason behind the Everard case getting so much media coverage is surely that Sarah's murderer was a serving policeman. The interviewer did not point this possibility out to Jebina Islam, Sabina's sister, which was extremely concerning, he let the perceived racial bias aspect go without comment.
The thing is, everything in this country is not about race and/or racial discrimination. London has an Asian mayor, the Home and the Health Secretaries are both Asian, several other Government Cabinet secretaries and ministers are Asian or Black. This country is not institutionally racist and anyone on mainstream media, of any ethnicity claiming that it is should be taken to task over their opinion.
I disagree that this country isn’t institutionally racist, indeed hasn’t the Metropolitan Police itself been criticised on more than one occasion for being institutionally racist?
I know the Met is not the whole country, but speaking personally I believe conscious or unconscious racism exists in many other areas of public life, and sadly with many individuals resident in this country.
I can’t immediately recall the reaction on here to the guilty verdict of the policeman, but something makes me think the call for the death penalty on here has been more strident and sustained for the bastard that deliberately murdered Sabina than the bastard that deliberately murdered Sarah.2 -
All murderers should be hung irrespective who they are. Nothing to do with who they killed or who done it. In my view of course. I totally disagree with them about it being a competition on who got more coverage, as it turns out and i don't live in London the media coverage i thought was the same, only one took a few days longer.
Both brilliant work by the much vilified on here Metropolitan police.2 - Sponsored links:
-
£65,000 a year to house a prisoner of his level of crime just shy of 3 million to house this piece of human waste - death penalty and be done with it.1
-
Much vilified for some very good reasons! The list goes on and on……….Chippycafc said:All murderers should be hung irrespective who they are. Nothing to do with who they killed or who done it. In my view of course. I totally disagree with them about it being a competition on who got more coverage, as it turns out and i don't live in London the media coverage i thought was the same, only one took a few days longer.
Both brilliant work by the much vilified on here Metropolitan police.2 -
This is fundamentally untrue. I think you'll find that the vast majority of arguments are around one of three concerns: 1. Concern for the legitimisation of violence and what that does for us as a society. 2. Concerns for the fact that the death penalty may not actually be sufficient punishment and that years in isolation may be more punishing. 3. Concern for the poor people who may be caught up in miscarriages of justice. Who are, in case you haven't worked this out, victims not criminals.Chippycafc said:...Unfortunately there are too many wooly haired mob that have more thought for the criminal than they do the victim...
It may be possible for you to find evidence of a concern for the welfare of criminals, but what I guarantee you will not find are people with greater concern for criminals than victims. Such a notion is as insulting as it is ridiculous.14 -
To say this country is not institutionally racist/doesn't have a problem with institutional racism is a massive statement.Lincsaddick said:Sabina's sister was on the radio this morning. Unfortunately she opined that the reason her sister's murder was not publicised as much as (say) the Sarah Everard murder was due to her sister's ethnicity. The difference is and the reason behind the Everard case getting so much media coverage is surely that Sarah's murderer was a serving policeman. The interviewer did not point this possibility out to Jebina Islam, Sabina's sister, which was extremely concerning, he let the perceived racial bias aspect go without comment.
The thing is, everything in this country is not about race and/or racial discrimination. London has an Asian mayor, the Home and the Health Secretaries are both Asian, several other Government Cabinet secretaries and ministers are Asian or Black. This country is not institutionally racist and anyone on mainstream media, of any ethnicity claiming that it is should be taken to task over their opinion.
And... as a white person, one I feel that really needs the perspective of people from minority ethnic groups....
Am I wrong?
I can see why her family are making the point.5 -
Your point 3 is the main reason I am totally against capital punishment in that mistakes cannot be rectified. There have been many instances where innocent men and women have gone to the gallows and lost their lives in the name of justice - an abhorrent crime. It cannot be optional - for capital offences it would have to be the default - and unless it can be guaranteed (and it can't) that every capital offence guilty verdict was correct, then I would never support it.Stig said:
This is fundamentally untrue. I think you'll find that the vast majority of arguments are around one of three concerns: 1. Concern for the legitimisation of violence and what that does for us as a society. 2. Concerns for the fact that the death penalty may not actually be sufficient punishment and that years in isolation may be more punishing. 3. Concern for the poor people who may be caught up in miscarriages of justice. Who are, in case you haven't worked this out, victims not criminals.Chippycafc said:...Unfortunately there are too many wooly haired mob that have more thought for the criminal than they do the victim...
It may be possible for you to find evidence of a concern for the welfare of criminals, but what I guarantee you will not find are people with greater concern for criminals than victims. Such a notion is as insulting as it is ridiculous.
4 -
If racism was still a major issue in this country, more of an issue would have been made about the ethnic origins of the murderer Koci SelamajSiv_in_Norfolk said:
To say this country is not institutionally racist/doesn't have a problem with institutional racism is a massive statement.Lincsaddick said:Sabina's sister was on the radio this morning. Unfortunately she opined that the reason her sister's murder was not publicised as much as (say) the Sarah Everard murder was due to her sister's ethnicity. The difference is and the reason behind the Everard case getting so much media coverage is surely that Sarah's murderer was a serving policeman. The interviewer did not point this possibility out to Jebina Islam, Sabina's sister, which was extremely concerning, he let the perceived racial bias aspect go without comment.
The thing is, everything in this country is not about race and/or racial discrimination. London has an Asian mayor, the Home and the Health Secretaries are both Asian, several other Government Cabinet secretaries and ministers are Asian or Black. This country is not institutionally racist and anyone on mainstream media, of any ethnicity claiming that it is should be taken to task over their opinion.
And... as a white person, one I feel that really needs the perspective of people from minority ethnic groups....
Am I wrong?
I can see why her family are making the point.
Apart from the fact that the murderer of Sarah Everard was a policeman which MASSIVELY increases the wider importance of the case, inevitably the "first" murder of this sort gets more of the headlines.1 -
Do you watch Tommy Robinson videos and think "this guy has a point!"?killerandflash said:
If racism was still a major issue in this country, more of an issue would have been made about the ethnic origins of the murderer Koci SelamajSiv_in_Norfolk said:
To say this country is not institutionally racist/doesn't have a problem with institutional racism is a massive statement.Lincsaddick said:Sabina's sister was on the radio this morning. Unfortunately she opined that the reason her sister's murder was not publicised as much as (say) the Sarah Everard murder was due to her sister's ethnicity. The difference is and the reason behind the Everard case getting so much media coverage is surely that Sarah's murderer was a serving policeman. The interviewer did not point this possibility out to Jebina Islam, Sabina's sister, which was extremely concerning, he let the perceived racial bias aspect go without comment.
The thing is, everything in this country is not about race and/or racial discrimination. London has an Asian mayor, the Home and the Health Secretaries are both Asian, several other Government Cabinet secretaries and ministers are Asian or Black. This country is not institutionally racist and anyone on mainstream media, of any ethnicity claiming that it is should be taken to task over their opinion.
And... as a white person, one I feel that really needs the perspective of people from minority ethnic groups....
Am I wrong?
I can see why her family are making the point.
Apart from the fact that the murderer of Sarah Everard was a policeman which MASSIVELY increases the wider importance of the case, inevitably the "first" murder of this sort gets more of the headlines.
Just trying to figure out if I should spend time researching your reference.1 -
Sabina's sister complained that this terrible murder wasn't on the front of the newspapers.
However, I definitely saw a photo of Sabina in her university "dress" on the front of the newspapers.
It also (quite rightly) seemed to be all over the national and local news on a daily basis.
RIP Sabina.4 -
Really..Stig said:
This is fundamentally untrue. I think you'll find that the vast majority of arguments are around one of three concerns: 1. Concern for the legitimisation of violence and what that does for us as a society. 2. Concerns for the fact that the death penalty may not actually be sufficient punishment and that years in isolation may be more punishing. 3. Concern for the poor people who may be caught up in miscarriages of justice. Who are, in case you haven't worked this out, victims not criminals.Chippycafc said:...Unfortunately there are too many wooly haired mob that have more thought for the criminal than they do the victim...
It may be possible for you to find evidence of a concern for the welfare of criminals, but what I guarantee you will not find are people with greater concern for criminals than victims. Such a notion is as insulting as it is ridiculous.0 -
???Siv_in_Norfolk said:
Do you watch Tommy Robinson videos and think "this guy has a point!"?killerandflash said:
If racism was still a major issue in this country, more of an issue would have been made about the ethnic origins of the murderer Koci SelamajSiv_in_Norfolk said:
To say this country is not institutionally racist/doesn't have a problem with institutional racism is a massive statement.Lincsaddick said:Sabina's sister was on the radio this morning. Unfortunately she opined that the reason her sister's murder was not publicised as much as (say) the Sarah Everard murder was due to her sister's ethnicity. The difference is and the reason behind the Everard case getting so much media coverage is surely that Sarah's murderer was a serving policeman. The interviewer did not point this possibility out to Jebina Islam, Sabina's sister, which was extremely concerning, he let the perceived racial bias aspect go without comment.
The thing is, everything in this country is not about race and/or racial discrimination. London has an Asian mayor, the Home and the Health Secretaries are both Asian, several other Government Cabinet secretaries and ministers are Asian or Black. This country is not institutionally racist and anyone on mainstream media, of any ethnicity claiming that it is should be taken to task over their opinion.
And... as a white person, one I feel that really needs the perspective of people from minority ethnic groups....
Am I wrong?
I can see why her family are making the point.
Apart from the fact that the murderer of Sarah Everard was a policeman which MASSIVELY increases the wider importance of the case, inevitably the "first" murder of this sort gets more of the headlines.
Just trying to figure out if I should spend time researching your reference.
My point is that his origins have correctly not been brought up, whether by tabloids or politicians
I entirely understand why her sister is upset, but she's the one bringing up the racial angle, when the same could be said of the killer, but hasn't been
And I'm not white5 - Sponsored links:
-
I really don't understand this at all.
5 -
I am sure that it’s very difficult to be rational when something terrible like this happens in your family but for society as a whole it is very disappointing when her sister makes this racism claim when it is demonstrably untrue as shown in the press stories above
On a parallel story Lord Ranger saying that getting after Rishi Sunak because the British establishment is racist is ridiculous given that Sunak has achieved the 2nd biggest job in government which is the pinnacle of the U.K. establishment- the argument is nonsensical
I think this cry wolf stuff on racism is bad for all of us and detracts from real problems and makes the general public very weary of this stuff7 -
Absolutely flabbergasted by the sisters comments.
It's hard to imagine how the case could have got any more press and TV coverage than it did - it was headline news everywhere and for a sustained period of time.
Maybe we should be charitable and put it down to grief. But I don't know why it's being covered so much now when its clearly bollocks!6 -
I think I understand what she is implying, the public outcry etc, bit that had more to do with the perpetrator's profession than the ethnicity of the respective victims.2
-
Could it be argued that the ethnicity of the perpetrators played a part? Ie if Sabina’s murderer was a white British male more would have been made of it?cfgs said:I think I understand what she is implying, the public outcry etc, bit that had more to do with the perpetrator's profession than the ethnicity of the respective victims.
i don’t know0 -
She’s grieving. She’s angry. She’s saying what she thinks.
Cut her some slack.3 -
It lead the front pages and tv news for days, I get that she’s grieving, but that doesn’t excuse unfounded accusations.8
-
Yes because you are always cutting people slackiainment said:She’s grieving. She’s angry. She’s saying what she thinks.
Cut her some slack.1 -
?palarsehater said:
Yes because you are always cutting people slackiainment said:She’s grieving. She’s angry. She’s saying what she thinks.
Cut her some slack.
If someone on here had suffered a similar loss of course I’d cut them all the slack they need.
3 -
Which is all true and fine.iainment said:She’s grieving. She’s angry. She’s saying what she thinks.
Cut her some slack.
But why has she been on every news channel tonight saying the same thing? Plenty of people on here spout bollocks - me included - and particularly so when they're angry, but we wouldn't be making headline news if what we were saying was clearly not true, regardless of whether we believe what we were saying or not.2
