Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.

Man jailed for setting his dog on woman in anti-gay attack

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. Pathetic sentence, truly pathetic. Six and a half months means four. The woman in question should get herself a lawyer and sue him for personal injury – hit him as hard as they can and let’s hope he leaves prison without a pot to p!ss in.

    1. Yes quite. He would have received a harsher sentence for looting poundland.

  2. what an absolute coward….. how big of him to attack two women and use weapons too…. i hope he gets what he just deserves although the sentence is disgusting

  3. I do sometimes wonder if the police take homophobic hatecrime as seriously as they should.
    I was punched in the face and had my legs kicked from under me by a gang of feral teens a few months back.
    It took the police 4 hours to get round to taking a statement, and then I got the distinct impression they were trying to put me off taking it further by telling me I’d have to face the two assailants [and by implication their feral mates] in court.
    They even hinted I should move out of my neighbourhood to prevent it occuring again. The next time I got abuse (bottle thrown at my face and spat at in the street outside my flat) I didn’t even bother reporting it.
    I have no proof it was a homophobic attack, but the police definately considered it was a possibility. How do you report these things without it escalating out of control?

    1. I should add that I would’ve taken mobile pictures of them to give to the police but when it’s 3 on one or more, the last thing you want to do is to give them something else to beat you up for. I admire Karen Wilson’s bravery, but there’s no way I’m flashing my mobile phone in front of a bunch of feral sociopaths in hoodies.

      1. Homnophobic or not you should not allow people to treat you like that.

        1. I see what you’re driving at, and in principle I agree, but in practice I Don’t recall being given a choice. In the first incident there were two of them and 6 more sat watching from the ‘reserve’ bench, and in the second incident it was 3 on one. Those are not my kind of odds.
          They know just what they can get away with and they never work alone.

        2. Another Hannah 7 Oct 2011, 4:14pm

          Not only would you get a hammering or worse there an then, you would quite possibly be setting yourself up for harassment and victimization in future, and all with almost zero help from the police. To report it would be to ruin your life to an extent.

      2. Another Hannah 7 Oct 2011, 4:12pm

        I know this happens because I’ve had it, and similarly don’t bother reporting. If you look at convictions in the UK you will see that damage to property and business is punished more heavily than hurting human beings – especially people form minorities. It is pretty clear that the police are there for business and the wealthy and nobody else much.

  4. Flapjack- When we were the victims of a homophobic attack the PC came round and said “Of course- if you say it was a homophobic attack there’s a lot more paperwork for me to get through”
    Needless to say- with THAT attitude- we just didn’t bother!

    1. Totally agree John – that tallies with my experience, but it leaves you with the impression that the police would sooner sweep homophobic attacks under the rug than confront the issue head on.
      They make overtones that you’re getting tea and sympathy but the subtext is best expressed by “can we really be bothered to waste our resources on this?”

      1. Paula Thomas 7 Oct 2011, 12:42pm

        John and Flapjack

        That is appalling. Which police force was it? Have you spoken to an LGBTLO (their name should be available at the local police station or on the local police website). If you don’t get any joy there then get hold of the local Independent Advisory Group. The London LGBTAG has a website if your in London you can contact them through that.

        1. Another Hannah 7 Oct 2011, 4:20pm

          The north Paula – Manchester if you believe many on here is supposed to be good for prejudice, but I doubt it if it’s anything like the rest of the north. Sleepy St Annes on sea is so bad they thought they would just tell me not to report it, and then when i did report it after complaining I got loads of aggro implied as a threat if I decided to take it too far. This is the reality, as opposed to the propaganda.

    2. Jock S. Trap 7 Oct 2011, 1:27pm

      I do agree John but do remember that just like everyone else your a taxpayer who pays their wages so have the right for them to do the job properly.

      I think these people deliberately try to make things more awkward forgetting that we do fund their wages just the same as the next person.

      We really shouldn’t have to make the point though if only they did the job properly and what we pay them to do.

      1. I don’t think it’s the officers, Jock – it’s the system itself. The officers are pressured to resolve crimes quickly, not accurately. And the system makes hate crime reporting hard, NOT the officers themselves. Whoever dreamed up extra paperwork for it was clearly intending that it put people off, especially since it could have been easily achieved by adding ONE question to current paperwork and the officer taking appropriate details in the statement.

        The officers do the best they can with a system that is completely and utterly broken – between them, Labour and the Conservatives have destroyed our legal system.

    3. I’m going to partially play devils advocate here – as someone who has to face an over-abundance of paperwork in my job, I can kind of understand the officers attitude a *little* bit: if the crime can be reported on either two forms or six (hypothetical examples, I have no idea of the numbers involved), of course they will prefer the former.

      The problem here ISN’T the officers but the morons who have made reporting a hate crime such a difficult thing to do in the first place – why all the extra paperwork? A simple addition to the current form (which I have experience of, having been assaulted at the end of August) asking “do you believe the crime was a hate crime?” and if the answer is yes the officer records the details in the statement. That is all that is needed.

      The officers are just stuck trying to work a knackered system as best they can. They get pushed and pressurised to resolve as many crimes/incidents as possible, so of course they are going to prefer the easiest option.

    4. This makes me upset. Even if the police did have to do a ton of paperwork that is their god damned job to do so. Just letting it sweep under the rug sets back what the lbgt community has been trying to do with equal rights and what have you. Pursue it, even if it takes a month. By you not reporting and getting these things taken care of you are telling them that it’s okay for them to abuse you.

  5. The dog has been trained to ‘get’ people and yet the judge still didn’t order it to be destroyed? Attack dogs are hardly loving, family pets.

    1. some people will say- its the owners fault you dont get bad dogs only bad owners- and they have a point. However once a dog has gone bad it WILL do it again especially if left with this thug. Dont like to see anything put down, but at least it should be rehomed with someone with a brain

      1. thats a sad truth, it is the fault of bad owners and as an animal lover it breaks my heart to say dogs like this must be put down. another life ruined by the sick ****ards that train these dogs.

        1. Dogs like this do not need to be put down. I have rehabilitated three previously aggressive dogs with great success and would love to continue doing so – if someone would pay me to take him/her – I would give ‘it’ a home and work with it!!

          However, what in my opinion should happen is for this man to be given a lifetime ban on keeping animals AFTER it has been recognised that this attack was made with a potentially lethal weapon!! All dogs have a wolf inside them that needs respect, structure and pack leadership.

          I do not agree that this dog cannot be rehabilitated (in principle, obviously, I do not know the dog.)

    2. cptkibbles 7 Oct 2011, 1:30pm

      hmm you raise a good point, i always thought the general view courts took was that if a dog attacks somone then it would be destroyed as doggie psychologists (forgive me i dont know the their proper name) always say that if a dog attacks once then its a near certainty that it will again

      1. This dog seems to have attacked on command not because it’s a dangerous out of control beast.

        The dog needs to be re-homed with a responsible, experienced owner in a home free from children and psychotic homophobes.

        Also, the judge should have ruled that Boswell should never be able to keep another dog again, on the grounds that in this instance he used his dog as a dangerous weapon.

    3. DJ Sheepiesheep 7 Oct 2011, 6:46pm

      He should be put down as well as his vile dog.

  6. It is a shameful attack, and a ludicrous sentence. When I’ve argued with so-called liberal left-wing straight people about the police and courts not taking anti-gay crimes seriously, the leftards deny it. I even pointed them to a previous story here, and the comments of other gay people saying the crimes are not taken seriously. The leftards could not even be bothered to read the comments.

    1. “The leftards could not even be bothered to read the comments.”

      “Leftards”? WTF? Do you really believe this or is there something wrong with you? This person was attacked, you stupid cretin, nothing to do with some fictitious political left moment in your head out to get you.

      Sometimes I despair at the mental health issues on this site.

    2. Jame, sounds like the “leftards” didn’t respond simply becuase they knew you’re a retard.

    3. Another Hannah 7 Oct 2011, 5:56pm

      duh? more likely the right try to brush over this.

      1. im a bit of a lefty, and thats why i think vicious homophobic attacks deserve harsher sentences. what do you think the word ‘liberal’ means? i have friends who swing the other way and they will tell you these attacks deserve harsher sentences too. stop trying to push your agenda on everybody jame and take the story for what it is.

        and for what its worth, had this not been an homophobic attack, i would still argue that 6 months is a pathetic sentenc.

  7. If I was her and saw the dog coming at me, I would have shot the bitch.

    1. Typical American

      1. i fear you are making the wrong conections, the thing idiots like this have in common is not their nationality, but the fact that they are idiots.

  8. What a truly disgusting sentence! Six and a half months?? I cannot fathom how anyone thought that that was in any way suitable for this cowardly, repeated attack. Bl**dy disgusting!

    And terrifying too – if this vile attack only gets six months what hope of proper justice do victims of less violent? homophobic attacks have

    1. Excuse that misplaced question mark. No idea what happened there. but it shouold read “what hope of proper justice do victims of less violent? homophobic attacks have?”

    2. Another Hannah 7 Oct 2011, 4:24pm

      More if it was property, especially property of the wealthy. You can tell what the function of the police is in this country through stuff like this, and they’re not there to help ordinary folk, and especially not minorities.

  9. Jock S. Trap 7 Oct 2011, 1:23pm

    Absolutely disgraceful and what message does six and a half months give when he will be out in three?

    People like this need to be shown their behaviour is unaccept both to themselves and as a deterrent to others, given proper sentences that send out a message that suchs act will not and cannot be toleranted.

    1. “People like this need to be shown their behaviour is unaccept both to themselves and as a deterrent to others”

      If the gays behaved themselves and stopped provoking normal everyday people, normal people would not be hostile.

      1. Dr Robin Guthrie 7 Oct 2011, 4:00pm

        If your an example of normal thank christ I ain’t.

      2. Another Hannah 7 Oct 2011, 4:26pm

        Your obviously a criminal, and into criminals rights mathew. You are not welcome here, can you not understand that?

        1. Hannah Id be very carefull throwing accusations about.. you wouldn want to nd up arressted… like someone on twitter now would you? I’ll expect your apploogy soon.

          Oh but I am allowed here, becasue everyone wants to be equal…and we do have a free speech acticle…

          1. “and we do have a free speech acticle”

            You’re right, even the very stupid like you have a right to speech…. but not the right of indemnity from being challenged over your stupidity Try a little harder next time before yo launder your ridiculous threats about, there’s a good chap.

          2. Ignore him, Hannah. He’s made other unfounded accusations elsewhere. I just feel sorry for him.

      3. The fact that you think it ‘normal’ for a man to attack women with a chain and set his dog on them speaks volumes.

  10. Who cares the PM say he will allow us to marry that all that matters!.

    1. Jock S. Trap 7 Oct 2011, 2:34pm

      Your sick fella, get help.

      1. It was an ironic post to illustrate the point that gay rights priorities are messed up. Our safety should be paramount the lobbying and energy spent on securing marriage would be better spent ensuring that people like that man are locked up for a long time and we can live in peace. Read flapjacks post I don’t think getting hitched is top of his list

        1. Another Hannah 7 Oct 2011, 4:28pm

          for once I agree with you James. personal safety first, then the less basic stuff.

          1. Thats big of you! I am right all the time you just need to catch up

    2. Dr Robin Guthrie 7 Oct 2011, 3:59pm

      Oh drop it for christ sake.

      1. Fak off

  11. There are some sick hate-filled people out there.

    1. Yep every Friday and Sunday they stoke the hatred that is expressed by people like him.

  12. What a load of rubbish, how do we know he ‘set the dog on them’ we dont.

    I dont believe a word these two women say at all.

    Appeal Mr Boswell.

    1. Another Hannah 7 Oct 2011, 4:29pm

      I don’t believe a word you say Mathew, you express the views of a criminal.

      1. Hannah Id be very carefull throwing accusations about.. you wouldn want to nd up arressted… like someone on twitter now would you? I’ll expect your apploogy soon

        1. Sur, but only when your degenerate mother apologises for bring a travesty like you into the world, Matthew.

        2. He was found guilty by a court of law, Matthew. He’s also being reported as having a previous conviction of aggravated burglary. Presumably you think the court was wrong and he’s innocent of that too? Or is it the mere fact that the victims here are gay that causes you to write such stuff?

          Don’t bother answering – that was a rhetorical question. You’re transparent. I do pity you.

          1. The judge was wrong, there were no witneses, it was hearsay and hearsay cannot be used in court, as its their word against his.

          2. Hearsay? What a fool you are. The medical evidence of the attack can easily be corroborated the the dog in question. Are the puncture wounds “hearsay”?

            I’m sure in your deluded head (as seen in another thread where you were pretending to “mount a defence” or use your superpowers to rescue him, or whatever hilarious nonsense goes o0n in that demented skull of yours. In the real worlds, you actually need neuroleptic medication for those.

          3. Blimey! An expert on legal procedure AND a big shot in the press, Matthew! I’m so impressed. Not. I can see you’re young, but I really hope you’re VERY young because you have a lot to learn.

    2. Matthew . . . astonishing !!! – do you say these things, just so that you can excel as the person generating the most negative scores on pinknews?

      1. As I said, The judge was wrong, there were no witneses, it was hearsay and hearsay cannot be used in court, as its their word against his.

        He will be out very soon, I have stared the ball rolling.

        1. Yawn.

          Do try harder, or at least try to pretend to be intelligent in such matters…. god knows, you’re delusional enough, pretending should be easy to you.

        2. All by your little lonesome? Su-u-u-u-u-u-u-ure.

        3. Matthew, you need help. Talk to someone. Your posts scream loneliness and unhappiness.

  13. de Villiers 7 Oct 2011, 5:35pm

    Does anyone know what this person was charged with and/or pleaded guilty to – the particular crime? Surely that would inform us as to the appropriateness of the sentence. There is anecdotal evidence of the prosecuting authorities accepting guilty pleas on lower offences rather than pushing for a trial on more serious ones.

  14. Give the dog to a quiet old lady who will calm it down and give it chocolate buttons, and give its owner a morphine overdose. Only kidding on the second bit, but one can fantasise.

  15. ‘please vacate this city of mine’. wrong on so many levels. manchester is a great city and i’ve always been proud of its tollerance of the LGBT community.

    akitas are great pets but like many other dogs they are owned by idiots with inferiority complexes and with the discusting way these animals are treated one can only hope one day they will turn on their owners.

    but saddest of all is the horror of the attack. this woman must have been fearing for her life, and i dont think theres a reason in the world that somebody should be put through that especially in cases of such ignorance and hatred as this.

    1. how many spelling mistakes? i know somebody is going to call me on it. sorry!

  16. Is the dog OK haha!

    1. James Hanover 8 Oct 2011, 11:07am

      Proof once again that humour is not the domain of everyone.

  17. Rehabilitate the dog and put Jason Boswell down.

  18. floridahank 8 Oct 2011, 2:06am

    If you’re so often faced with violence from 2-3 guys, I think you should take martial arts training with using a nunchuck. They’re easy to carry unnoticed, and once you’re trained sufficiently, you can easily beat anyone who attacks you.
    Knowing some basic karate gives you confidence as well as protection. And it doesn’t take too much nunchuck practice to whip 2 guys. I trained in karate when I was much younger. Martial arts training is good for women also.

    1. Gay Daily Mail Reader 8 Oct 2011, 4:19pm

      The problem is that you could get done for carrying an offensive weapon and if you used it in self-defence then it is you that gets done as the law is weighted in favour of the criminal. It is a good idea to get enroled into a martial arts class to learn self defence but don’t carry weapons.

      1. floridahank 8 Oct 2011, 9:37pm

        In the USA many states permit people to carry guns on themselves in public, so it’s legal to carry an offensive weapon, and a nunchuck would not be prohibited either — other countries might have different laws, I’m not sure about UK, the karate teacher will have the answer. If nothing more, use a heavy cane which in reality is not an offensive weapon, and the karate teacher can show various ways to use it for defense. I would take a proactive approach not simply a reactive approach when confronted with any thugs.The criminal element in the US is out of hand in certain neighborhoods , so one should do what one can to be in peace when in public.

        1. Nun-chucks actually have been proven to be illegal to carry in most states as a weapon of defense. You are also not allowed to carry knives in view or swords etc… the only time you are permitted to carry a gun is if you went through the necessary classes on gun safety and have a permit for carrying the gun otherwise it is against the law. You are permitted to OWN guns without a permit, but not to carry one out into public.

        2. And even then the permit is for concealed weaponry.

  19. Gay Daily Mail Reader 8 Oct 2011, 4:24pm

    A dog reflects it owner’s personality. People who own bull terriers and other ‘weapon dogs’ just want to look hard themselves. I am not suggesting that we all walk around with Bichon Frises and Poodles but I think that the law should be tightened regarding dog ownership. Six and a half months? He will be out in less than four. I just hope he drops the soap in the showers!

    1. Which is why my rottweiler bitch is calm placid and loving: she has worked successfully at helping people (including children) overcome their fear of dogs.

  20. This judge seems to have got this wrong. I don’t get the justice system in this country.

    1. I agree Kyle, the judge was wrong, there were no witneses, only the two girls saying the dog ‘attacked’ them and he was shouting ‘abuse’ we dont know anything, but I do not believe them for a moment, also it was hearsay and hearsay cannot be used in court, as its their word against his.

      I have started the ball rolling to get this guy free, I have the contacts.

      1. No you don’t agree with me, you misunderstand me, I think the judge should have given him a tougher sentence. I also think he should be banned from keeping pets (especially dogs) when he gets out of prison.

        1. Ignore him, Kyle. He’s a troll and thinks he’s being clever.

      2. “I have started the ball rolling to get this guy free, I have the contacts.”

        LOL! Oh, yeah, sure you do – the same way you stupidly threaten people in here? Woooo, how scared we all are.

        What an unmitigated fool you are, blustering like this a gay site, how ultimately pathetic.

        1. You beat me to it, Will :D Seriously, Matthew, we’re all wincing on your behalf even if you can’t see how embarrassing your behaviour is. I also suspect you’re not very old, are you?

          Sort out whatever’s causing you distress or pain in your own life and you’ll be a lot happier. I genuinely feel sorry for you.

          1. Appeal fund started with help from a Newspaper, £900 already.

          2. “Appeal fund started with help from a Newspaper, £900 already.”

            LOL! Classic.

            Oh, bless, this gets better and better!!!! Iris, I couldn’t agree more!

            Even if it were real, £900???? What are you going to do with £900, buy the defence council a coffee?

            And what “newspaper” is this – funny its not even mentioned on the internet. More lies? More delusions? How “powerful” you are, Matthew, now that you’re not only Queens Council but an newspaper Editor too! What an imagination!

            You’re pathetic, you really are. Its really obvious now why you spend your time ranting on a gay site, futility is something you are more than accustomed to, Matthew.

          3. What newspaper would this be, Matthew? And is it published in this world or some fantasy world in your head? Or maybe it’s your ambition to own a newspaper when you leave school?

            If I were you, I’d concentrate on your obvious mental health issues. See your GP or phone MIND or any anonymous helpline that you think you’d feel happy talking to. You’ll feel a lot better in every way, and be able to enjoy your own life.

  21. soapbubblequeen 14 Oct 2011, 6:48pm

    That dog would have been dead meat. Which would then have been force-fed to him.

  22. Troy Penderson 24 Oct 2011, 4:34pm

    This is disgraceful. I think he should’ve gotten a year for this.

  23. more awful news…and I also find myself corrected. I’d commented on poor Stuarts death asking why it’s always the guys who are attacked and that I’d never seen news of gay women being attacked and I suddenly stumble on this dreadful news. :(

These comments are un-moderated and do not necessarily represent the views of PinkNews.co.uk. If you believe that a comment is inappropriate or libellous, please contact us.

Top commenters this week

Latest stories

See all