A simple ‘no’ would have sufficed.
The sentence seems rather lenient.
Well, he DID plead guilty – ie. he didn’t try to weasel his way out of being an idiot.
Perhaps there is yet hope for the bloke. There. My optimism chore for this week is done with.
That happened my cousin from a guy who punched her and called her a dyke(albeit shes straight) for refusing his advances. anyhow he gotta a caution for admitting he was wrong. But a few months later down the same pub , he punched her again this time knocked her teeth out. Basically they will say anything to have more lenient sentence even if that means fessing up.
Yes, i do think this sounds like it was dealt with in the correct manner…
Not a blatant case of out and out homophobia, just a name-calling incident between people who knew each other..
The lad was wrong to lash out, but he pleaded guilty and owned-up to his mistake.. I hope he learns to control his temper in future…
Absolutely disgusting. The punishment hardly reflecks the crime. How does this sentence deter others?
120 hours of community sounds about right to me – reading between the lines of the news report (as one so often has to do on this site) it sounds like the “asking if he was gay” could well have been a homophobic remark rather than an innocent question.
possibly could have been homophobic remark but from the article here, which is what is in discussion thats not mentioned. So based on the article at hand , sounds like the loser thinks being called gay is a major dis akin to being called a perv a paedo whatevea. So the guy must be laughing at the pathetic sentence..
Yes, this is interesting. Not enough is being told to us. And one wonders how much detail was aired in court!
Was the man who was kicked to the ground
1. a gay man, politely enquiring of the other.
2. a gay man, imputing gayness in the other.
3. a straight man, politely enquiring
4. a straight man, imputing gayness
5. a straight man, insultingly imputing gayness.
What the feelings were, as well as what the intentions were and what the actual words used were, make a big difference in assessing the teenager’s response.
There can be No excuse for violence.
> There can be No excuse for violence
Sometimes violence can be a legitimate tool in particular circumstances. But not in this case.
I agree with that de Villiers.
It seems an extremely light sentence if the victim was actually disfigured (though we’re not told in what way or to what extent).
The extent of the injuries suffered is in the article.
“The victim suffered a cut to his eyebrow which required two stitches and has left a permanent scar.”
So it is – the perils of reading too quickly when at work!
It would be helpful if he were to be required to complete the community service helping assist a gay or lesbian support group in some manner.
The sentence does seem lenient but the article does not make clear to which precise crime the defendant pleaded guilty or the basis of the facts put forward by the prosecution on which he was sentenced.
But the defendant is gay, right?
I mean, only in a distorted world like ours could it still carry such a stigma to be gay that he felt compelled to lash out so viciously.
Reminds me of Raoul Moat, who was so profoundly gay, he had to shoot three people in order to get his dying wish of being surrounded by men in uniform.
I think the real issue is why is it that someone suggesting another person is gay is offensive at all, let alone enough to warrant a vicious attack. If the question was being posed with the intent of being demeaning, why is the suggestion of someone being gay provocative at all? It’s very sad to think that people continue to walk around thinking like this.
The sentence is disgustingly lenient. These people plead guilt when their lawyers advise them to, because the lawyer can’t get them out of a guilty verdict. The plea does not represent the man’s remorse or enlightened views since the attack in any way.
As far as I’m concerned as long as we have space in prisons for people who don’t pay their council tax, then we have space for people who cause horrible injuries to another human being – for any reason.
unfortunately money matters to many more then the homophobic hate crimes
I have to say there is a degree of truth in that comment Chester.
The QUEEN doth protest too much.