Johnny Marbles locked up

[mgtony]

6 weeks in prison for Johnny Marbles for stunt with Murdoch. Good.

[don4l]

A 6 week sentence won't act as much of a deterrent. Six months would have been more appropriate.

Don
--

[Puggit]

I don't condone his actions one bit, but compared to what the average chav receives for far more physical violence on the average high st every weekend, this is grossly disproportionate.

I suspect he could appeal and potentially win damages - but I'm no lawyer!

[tim0409]

Puggit said:

I don't condone his actions one bit, but compared to what the average chav receives for far more physical violence on the average high st every weekend, this is grossly disproportionate.

I suspect he could appeal and potentially win damages - but I'm no lawyer!

He is a complete tw@t so I think a 6 week sentence for a premeditated assault is quite light (I would much rather see the average chav locked up for far longer too)

Not sure he could potentially win damages - if his sentence is reduced on appeal he will simply be let out early.

But lets hope he appeals and they increase it.

[Davel]

It's all a publicity stunt anyway!

[heebeegeetee]

mgtony said:

6 weeks in prison for Johnny Marbles for stunt with Murdoch. Good.

+1.

We are very fortunate in the UK to have some degree of accountability and free speech when things go tits up. Marbles interfered with that process, so fk him.

[CooperD]

Maybe he'll share a cell with Charlie Gilmour. They can spend the 23 hours locked up telling jokes to each other.

[monthefish]

I think that is an extremly harsh sentence. It was a plate of foam FFS.

I think the actions of murdochs Wife was actually worse, she actually hit the chap - is she being prosecuted at all?

[mattviatura]

What a tt, although I can't help but think that the apparently low public opinion of him has hurt him more than a six week sentence.

I hope the wker gets a job when he gets out.

[Kwai Chang Caine]

monthefish said:

I think the actions of murdochs Wife was actually worse, she actually hit the chap - is she being prosecuted at all?

Seriously?

[monthefish]

Kwai Chang Caine said:

monthefish said:

I think the actions of murdochs Wife was actually worse, she actually hit the chap - is she being prosecuted at all?

Seriously?

Yes seriously.

What's more serious,
1) a slap/punch to the face, or
2) a plate of foam to the face?

[tank slapper]

monthefish said:

I think that is an extremly harsh sentence. It was a plate of foam FFS.

Doesn't matter what it was. It was in the middle of proceedings in the houses of parliament, and he therefore showed utter contempt for the democratic system. I don't think he has much to complain about with that sentence.

[petemurphy]

have the people in charge of security been sacked yet?

[monthefish]

tank slapper said:

monthefish said:

I think that is an extremly harsh sentence. It was a plate of foam FFS.

Doesn't matter what it was. It was in the middle of proceedings in the houses of parliament, and he therefore showed utter contempt for the democratic system. I don't think he has much to complain about with that sentence.

I totally agree with that element of it, and on that basis, yes, perhaps the sentence is justified.

However Murdochs wife is equally guilty of that, but with a more violent strike, and if you watch the video, she isn't actually defending him - its unquestionably an 'offensive' stike (in retaliation).

[Kwai Chang Caine]

monthefish said:

Yes seriously.

What's more serious,
1) a slap/punch to the face, or
2) a plate of foam to the face?

Well one's premeditated assault (irespective of whether foam or not).

The other is self defence imho.

[elster]

tank slapper said:

monthefish said:

I think that is an extremly harsh sentence. It was a plate of foam FFS.

Doesn't matter what it was. It was in the middle of proceedings in the houses of parliament, and he therefore showed utter contempt for the democratic system. I don't think he has much to complain about with that sentence.

Absolutely.

This would be given a harsher sentence if it was in a court, however the standings are the same.

[wolves_wanderer]

monthefish said:

tank slapper said:

monthefish said:

I think that is an extremly harsh sentence. It was a plate of foam FFS.

Doesn't matter what it was. It was in the middle of proceedings in the houses of parliament, and he therefore showed utter contempt for the democratic system. I don't think he has much to complain about with that sentence.

I totally agree with that element of it, and on that basis, yes, perhaps the sentence is justified.

However Murdochs wife is equally guilty of that, but with a more violent strike, and if you watch the video, she isn't actually defending him - its unquestionably an 'offensive' stike (in retaliation).

How was she supposed to know if he had anything else planned? She was perfectly justified.

[neilr]

Mr Marbles solicitor was on R4 a few minutes ago. One of the things that he mentioned was that the original charge was "a public order offence that would have only carried a financial penalty, however the Crown prosecution pursued the charge of assault even though Mr Murdoch didn't want to pursue that"

Whats that all about then?

[tank slapper]

neilr said:

Whats that all about then?

It isn't up to Murdoch. This bloke assaulted someone on live TV in the houses of parliament. Hence that is what he was prosecuted for.

[turbobloke]

tank slapper said:

neilr said:

Whats that all about then?

It isn't up to Murdoch. This bloke assaulted someone on live TV in the houses of parliament. Hence that is what he was prosecuted for.

Good result.

Presumably Mrs Murdoch will be in line for a civic award. Well done that woman, somebody attacking a close member of your family is a context in which reasonable force can be used. I'm sure she can be forgiven for not carrying out an instant chemical analysis of the foam, or an immediate psychiatric assessment of the attacker in terms of what he might have done next, armed with who knows what else.

Hopefully her lawful response hurt the weasley git.