Man arrested after baby girl is punched in a supermarket.
Discussion
_dobbo_ said:
So Julian, which is normal if somebody punches my newborn baby?
1.) I stop to carefully consider his motivation, giving time to allow for the fact that it might have been an honest mistake at humour.
2.) I flip my f
king st.
Because I know which I would do, but I don't know which you would consider normal.
If my baby was unharmed and the chap on realising his mistake was suitably apologetic I would let it pass after he accompanied me to the nearest doctor to get the baby checked out.1.) I stop to carefully consider his motivation, giving time to allow for the fact that it might have been an honest mistake at humour.
2.) I flip my f
king st.Because I know which I would do, but I don't know which you would consider normal.
All the way to the other end of the scale. If my baby had obvious injuries, and or he wasn't suitably apologetic I would jump on him and probably not stop till someone pulled me off.
An appropriate response is normal. Deciding to unleash the mob on the basis of what we know isn't rational.
Here let me thrown another one to the wolves.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-tayside-cent...
Baby mysteriously ends up with a spiral fracture of the leg. No one admits to any harm so the case gets thrown out.
The problem is that in the ops case there is no harm proved by anyone and the mob is angry. The law is likely to crucify him.
In this case there certain has been considerable harm from someone and the law is going to do nothing.
How sayeth the mob?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-tayside-cent...
Baby mysteriously ends up with a spiral fracture of the leg. No one admits to any harm so the case gets thrown out.
The problem is that in the ops case there is no harm proved by anyone and the mob is angry. The law is likely to crucify him.
In this case there certain has been considerable harm from someone and the law is going to do nothing.
How sayeth the mob?
julian64 said:
Here let me thrown another one to the wolves.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-tayside-cent...
Baby mysteriously ends up with a spiral fracture of the leg. No one admits to any harm so the case gets thrown out.
The problem is that in the ops case there is no harm proved by anyone and the mob is angry. The law is likely to crucify him.
In this case there certain has been considerable harm from someone and the law is going to do nothing.
How sayeth the mob?
Case thrown out.... that's clearly GBH at the very least / amplified for the fact it is GBH to a baby /broken babies leg. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-tayside-cent...
Baby mysteriously ends up with a spiral fracture of the leg. No one admits to any harm so the case gets thrown out.
The problem is that in the ops case there is no harm proved by anyone and the mob is angry. The law is likely to crucify him.
In this case there certain has been considerable harm from someone and the law is going to do nothing.
How sayeth the mob?
What say the mob? Nail the b
d Welshbeef said:
julian64 said:
Here let me thrown another one to the wolves.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-tayside-cent...
Baby mysteriously ends up with a spiral fracture of the leg. No one admits to any harm so the case gets thrown out.
The problem is that in the ops case there is no harm proved by anyone and the mob is angry. The law is likely to crucify him.
In this case there certain has been considerable harm from someone and the law is going to do nothing.
How sayeth the mob?
Case thrown out.... that's clearly GBH at the very least / amplified for the fact it is GBH to a baby /broken babies leg. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-tayside-cent...
Baby mysteriously ends up with a spiral fracture of the leg. No one admits to any harm so the case gets thrown out.
The problem is that in the ops case there is no harm proved by anyone and the mob is angry. The law is likely to crucify him.
In this case there certain has been considerable harm from someone and the law is going to do nothing.
How sayeth the mob?
What say the mob? Nail the b
d I assume that as it was thrown out we will treat him as innocent, regardless if we felt he did it or so. That's what our judicial system is based on.
moanthebairns said:
I was called in for Jury duty for that very case Monday morning, I heard the charges but I wasn't part of the 15 picked. I saw the chap stand in front of the court.
I assume that as it was thrown out we will treat him as innocent, regardless if we felt he did it or so. That's what our judicial system is based on.
End of the day on that case a babies leg was broken. I assume that as it was thrown out we will treat him as innocent, regardless if we felt he did it or so. That's what our judicial system is based on.
Maybe the baby has brittle bone ? If so that could be an explaination. Otherwise and also the apparent neighbours hearing the crying in agony for an hour would to me indicate something very wrong there.
Had I or the Mrs had an accident which hurt the child we'd be racing to be hospital or 999 ambulance straight away.
It may come as a shock, but he's been found guilty: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-38...
I could never see how claiming it was a doll would be a valid defence.
The Manchester Evening News reports the baby had a red mark to her face.
The Mail are reporting she had a fist mark across her forehead / had a mark the size of an egg on her head.
I could never see how claiming it was a doll would be a valid defence.
The Manchester Evening News reports the baby had a red mark to her face.
The Mail are reporting she had a fist mark across her forehead / had a mark the size of an egg on her head.
La Liga said:
It may come as a shock, but he's been found guilty: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-38...
I could never see how claiming it was a doll would be a valid defence.
The Manchester Evening News reports the baby had a red mark to her face.
The Mail are reporting she had a fist mark across her forehead / had a mark the size of an egg on her head.
He got off lightly IMO. I could never see how claiming it was a doll would be a valid defence.
The Manchester Evening News reports the baby had a red mark to her face.
The Mail are reporting she had a fist mark across her forehead / had a mark the size of an egg on her head.
Considering 'District Judge Sam Goozee dismissed Hardy's claim that he thought the child was a doll as "implausible"' it seems strange that it was just a fine. Assuming the judge believed it was deliberate and he knew it was a baby I can't see understand how he decided against a short suspended sentence.
£900+costs isn't much of a punishment to most people, and he must be comfortably off for that much to have been imposed.
£900+costs isn't much of a punishment to most people, and he must be comfortably off for that much to have been imposed.
Edited by Gareth79 on Wednesday 23 November 17:15
Gareth79 said:
Considering 'District Judge Sam Goozee dismissed Hardy's claim that he thought the child was a doll as "implausible"' it seems strange that it was just a fine. Assuming the judge believed it was deliberate and he knew it was a baby I can't see understand how he decided against a short suspended sentence.
£900+costs isn't much of a punishment to most people, and he must be comfortably off for that much to have been imposed.
It depends how you work through the guidelines on page 24: http://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/wp-content/upl...£900+costs isn't much of a punishment to most people, and he must be comfortably off for that much to have been imposed.
Edited by Gareth79 on Wednesday 23 November 17:15
It looks like it's been judged that it was either, 'greater harm and lower culpability', or 'lesser harm and higher culpability' to prevent it being a category 1 offence. It looks as if it has been judged to a be a lower-level category 2 offence.
del mar said:
did it ever come out why he would punch a doll in the face ?
beeb said:
Hardy told the court he had been "messing around to lighten the mood" and thought the "doll" belonged to Elsie Rose's older sister.
He said the seven-year-old "looked bored" and he had asked her: "Is that your baby?"
"She didn't reply and I said 'I'm going to wake your baby up'," he said.
He claimed he then tapped the child with a "loose fist" to "wind up" the girl.
He added that in hindsight, he could see there was nothing playful about his "wholly inappropriate" actions.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-38079322He said the seven-year-old "looked bored" and he had asked her: "Is that your baby?"
"She didn't reply and I said 'I'm going to wake your baby up'," he said.
He claimed he then tapped the child with a "loose fist" to "wind up" the girl.
He added that in hindsight, he could see there was nothing playful about his "wholly inappropriate" actions.
La Liga said:
Gareth79 said:
Considering 'District Judge Sam Goozee dismissed Hardy's claim that he thought the child was a doll as "implausible"' it seems strange that it was just a fine. Assuming the judge believed it was deliberate and he knew it was a baby I can't see understand how he decided against a short suspended sentence.
£900+costs isn't much of a punishment to most people, and he must be comfortably off for that much to have been imposed.
It depends how you work through the guidelines on page 24: http://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/wp-content/upl...£900+costs isn't much of a punishment to most people, and he must be comfortably off for that much to have been imposed.
Edited by Gareth79 on Wednesday 23 November 17:15
It looks like it's been judged that it was either, 'greater harm and lower culpability', or 'lesser harm and higher culpability' to prevent it being a category 1 offence. It looks as if it has been judged to a be a lower-level category 2 offence.
I imagine the CPS might be considering an appeal on the sentence?
Gareth79 said:
thanks, I can see how they got there. I imagine they decided it wasn't premeditated (spur of the moment thoughtlessness), and it didn't meet any of the 'higher culpability' factors. That combined with a lack of previous offending and a good character.
I imagine the CPS might be considering an appeal on the sentence?
A sentence needs to be 'unduly lenient' and not merely 'lenient' to be appealed. I think if we can both see a logical route to how the sentence has been reached it's never going to be 'unduly lenient'. I imagine the CPS might be considering an appeal on the sentence?
Carrot said:
This is the billion dollar question!!
He said he thought it was the 7 year old sister's doll and he was involved in a bit of horseplay that involved rapping it in the head with a loose fistI actually believe him as I don't believe that if he was such a nutter that he had done it knowingly, that he wouldn't have any previous convictions by 64 years old, as someone doing that intentionally would have a complete screw loose. It was a stupid moment of completely misjudged messing around that will have ruined the rest of his life in my opinion not an act of malace
jakesmith said:
Carrot said:
This is the billion dollar question!!
He said he thought it was the 7 year old sister's doll and he was involved in a bit of horseplay that involved rapping it in the head with a loose fistI actually believe him as I don't believe that if he was such a nutter that he had done it knowingly, that he wouldn't have any previous convictions by 64 years old, as someone doing that intentionally would have a complete screw loose. It was a stupid moment of completely misjudged messing around that will have ruined the rest of his life in my opinion not an act of malace
Now it appears the baby was next to her 6 year old daughter in the trolly and the guy thought the baby was a doll belonging to the daughter. A quick rap on the head as a playful gesture in order to goad the daughter isn't in my view something with should be jailing people for.
If it was my daughter I'd be annoyed and if hit him back! Harder likely, but that would be the end of it, couldnt see me pursuing it to court under the circumstances
jakesmith said:
Carrot said:
This is the billion dollar question!!
He said he thought it was the 7 year old sister's doll and he was involved in a bit of horseplay that involved rapping it in the head with a loose fistI actually believe him as I don't believe that if he was such a nutter that he had done it knowingly, that he wouldn't have any previous convictions by 64 years old, as someone doing that intentionally would have a complete screw loose. It was a stupid moment of completely misjudged messing around that will have ruined the rest of his life in my opinion not an act of malace
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff