A new bandwagon to jump on

icowden

Über Member
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-birmingham-59532071

I see that already a Conservative MP and former journalist has already found a bandwagon to jump on in respect of the dreadful court case of Arthur Labinjo-Hughes.

Which do we think is more likely:-

1) Julian Knight has reviewed the sentencing guidelines, read the judges summation and presented a clear cut case to the attorney general for review of the sentence.
2) Julian Knight has decided this would be great publicity for him and for the "tough on crime" Conservatives, and has presented no evidence in support whatsoever to the attorney general who agrees that this would look great with voters.

Personally I'm going with number 2. I suspect that the sentencing was quite carefully done.
 

Pale Rider

Well-Known Member
This has been covered in the relevant thread.

In addition, it's worth remembering anyone can ask the attorney general to review a qualifying sentence, that is a relatively small number of serious offences, including these two.

The person making the request does not have to give supporting evidence, and even if they did it would be ignored.

All the attorney general does is ask for relevant information to enable his department to identify the case being referred to.

His office then decides if the sentence should be referred to the Court of Appeal.

Until relatively recently, only the prosecuting lawyer could seek a referral.

This was thought undesirable because, quite correctly, there were fears that prosecutors who regularly appeared in front of the same judges and have known them for years would not want to rock the boat.

Obviously, a victim, their family, an MP, or an ordinary member of the public, is not bothered about being scowled at at the next Bar dinner.

https://www.gov.uk/ask-crown-court-sentence-review
 
I read that this boy's body is still in some stainless steel drawer in a morgue somewhere.
Why not just give this stupid argument a rest?

It's a tragedy that the boy has not had a decent funeral but that's down to the family.

None of that is a reason not to debate both the legalities and the political aspects falling out of the convictions/sentences.
 
OP
OP
icowden

icowden

Über Member
Didn't spot there was already a thread - consider this one closed and use the other.
 

Beebo

Senior Member
I read that this boy's body is still in some stainless steel drawer in a morgue somewhere.
Why not just give this stupid argument a rest?
Both his biological parents are in prison for lengthy periods.
Would they be allowed out for a funeral?
I can imagine the extended families probably don’t get on.
 
OP
OP
icowden

icowden

Über Member
All the attorney general does is ask for relevant information to enable his department to identify the case being referred to.
His office then decides if the sentence should be referred to the Court of Appeal.

At the moment the Attorney General is a "her" unless I missed a reshuffle.
 

Pale Rider

Well-Known Member
At the moment the Attorney General is a "her" unless I missed a reshuffle.

Cruella de Braverman was on maternity leave, might be back now, but it matters not in this context.

I see the Court of Appeal significantly increased the terms for a group of young lifers.

What some of them are doing now is closer to what they would have got had they been in their mid-20s or older.

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/batley-murderers-have-sentences-increased
 

matticus

Senior Member
What do people think about minute's silence at footy matches for this poor kid? Unless they have a link with the club - and that may have been the case - it feels a bit forced, possibly bandwagon-leaping to me.

(Interested in the popular view on this, where else can I ask what I should be thinking? )
 

shep

Guru
What do people think about minute's silence at footy matches for this poor kid? Unless they have a link with the club - and that may have been the case - it feels a bit forced, possibly bandwagon-leaping to me.

(Interested in the popular view on this, where else can I ask what I should be thinking? )
There was clapping at 6 minutes at Wolves, in reference to the lads age.

I can only assume it was to show some form of respect/sympathy and as plenty of games were televised I guess it would have had a wide audience.

I see no problem with that but as a lot on here make reference to Poppy/Flag shagging I doubt it's something you would approve of.

There's no band wagon to leap on as far as I can see, most don't know the kiddie and there's no glory to be had so what's the problem?

Clap, don't clap, who gives a t**s?

I wouldn't make a row during a silence for anyone as clearly some think it's important to them and that's enough for me, I've been at grounds where Tossers start shouting during a silence and they usually get some shoot once it's over.

I doubt for one minute I'm in the majority on this fully packed cross section of society forum though.:laugh:
 

BoldonLad

Old man on a bike. Not a member of a clique.
Location
South Tyneside
What do people think about minute's silence at footy matches for this poor kid? Unless they have a link with the club - and that may have been the case - it feels a bit forced, possibly bandwagon-leaping to me.

(Interested in the popular view on this, where else can I ask what I should be thinking? )

I am not a football fan, so, do not attend football matches, but, in general, I tend to think of such things as bandwagon-leaping.
 

slowmotion

Regular
I think most people are quite capable of forming their own opinions about this appalling case without public displays of concern. It's not as though bowing your head at a public event does any good. Nobody is going to change their mind and wake up with a Eureka moment and think " Since I went to the match, I realised that I mustn't kill a six year old today." It's Diana-style grief-lite.
 
Top Bottom