That’s it!?? o.O
Conveniently he couldn’t remember the attack. How very convenient.
Honestly, the system is a joke. At least the victims have some assurance if it can be called that, that he might learn a lesson.
Oh he can’t remember? Oh that’s OK. NOT. Fool
He was probably so rat-faced he couldn’t remember. It is about time that the courts treated alcohol and drunkeness as an aggravating factor rather than a mitigating one. Too many people get off scot-free because they are normally nice people when they are sober. If you are drunk when you commit a motoring offence you lose your licence, not get treated more leniently because of the booze. I like my drink but I do not behave like a complete toe-rag after a couple of pints.
That would mean that if you can remember beating up a gay person, your sentence should be lighter than if you cannot remember it.
So this is justice at work – all we’ve been fighting for?! How can you not remember beating 2 ‘poofs’ up, there’s gotta be bragging rights on that!
I agree with Gingerly – being drunk is an aggravating factor in these crimes. It sounds like this attack was, like so many, completely unprovoked. So where is the justice with suspending his sentence?
Sounds like Judge Hughes obviously had some sympathy with the defendant’s circumstances (first time offender, maybe?). Even so, suspended sentences should be looked at in all gay hate trials. Reduce the sentence, by all means. But if found guilty, it’s straight to prison regardless of the ‘I’m an angel, honest gov’ courtroom strategy (pun intended).
What a waste of time and money taking this to Court, under the the ‘Bill of special rights for homosexuals’ Judge Hughes was right in to sending him to jail, he said what he thought, as his right of opinion,
I hope he will appeal, using the case of the Christian preacher as an example, everyone has a right to say what they like.
I cannot understand a word of that.
Thats because its just drivel!
Why didn’t the couple just beat the crap out of him on the spot? Instant justice!
My Hubby and I chased 2 lads down the street whilst on the phone to the police after they threatened to kill us for holding hands. When arrested (thanks to our running commentary of their location) their defence was that they thought WE were going to attack THEM and that we made the first move.
Isn’t it so lovely that the police record all 999 calls and most mobiles have cameras in them these days to record video? The police warned us that it could have all ended differently if it weren’t for that evidence and the fact they were ‘known’ to the law. Especially if we had done anything more than follow them.
I would have loved to use the ‘gay panic’ defence, tho: “But Your Honour, he made homophobic remarks! I thought he was going to attack me, so I glassed him in the face and then stamped repeatedly on his ‘family jewels’…” *ahem*