Magistrate in trouble for branding vandals as scum....
Magistrate in trouble for branding vandals as scum....
Author
Discussion

Brewsters

Original Poster:

651 posts

199 months

Tuesday 18th May 2010
quotequote all
As title suggests, two 17yr olds vandalised a cathedral and when in court, a magistrate branded them as 'scum'. The comment has landed the magistrate in hot water.

Sorry for sketchy details - just heard this on the radio. Unbelievable. Wrecking hymn books and vandalised other stuff.

Scum indeed. Actually, I'd go as far as to call them total and utter s.

Chris_OCR

5,429 posts

206 months

Tuesday 18th May 2010
quotequote all
There is something about the word "scum" that sounds quite severe, I would put it in the same class as c*** to be honest, and the lads that did this clearly are, exactly that.

james_tigerwoods

16,347 posts

227 months

Tuesday 18th May 2010
quotequote all
Oik's Mum said:
But he's a good boy/promising footballer/etc really

bazking69

8,620 posts

220 months

Tuesday 18th May 2010
quotequote all
They are scum. The magistrate said nothing wrong IMO and they shouldn't have a leg to stand on.

A court appearance should be about standing their silently while you get read the riot act in no uncertain terms, even if you don't like what you are hearing.

anonymous-user

84 months

Tuesday 18th May 2010
quotequote all
They are scum, simple as.

The only people that are trying to get him in trouble are the tree hugging, arse kissing, politically correct morons who seem to have taken over how this country is run and think they speak for the majority of the country. When in fact they speak for a small minority of mentally deficient government tts.

Neil H

15,418 posts

281 months

Tuesday 18th May 2010
quotequote all
Court Clerk being a PC jobsworth moron:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/lancash...

Swilly

9,699 posts

304 months

Tuesday 18th May 2010
quotequote all
The local Mayor supported the Magistrate though.

Once found guilty i dont think it inappropriate to put to the offender the potential reaction, public consequence of their actions.

It may do them well to be told straight what they may be percieved as by others.
The magistrate didnt actually call them scum he just indicated that that was what the public may consider them to be.
A word of warning by a paternal-minded upstanding member of the community trying to open the eyes of the blind.

WorAl

10,877 posts

218 months

Tuesday 18th May 2010
quotequote all
bazking69 said:
They are scum. The magistrate said nothing wrong IMO and they shouldn't have a leg to stand on.
Bit severe amputating their legs though.

bazking69

8,620 posts

220 months

Tuesday 18th May 2010
quotequote all
WorAl said:
bazking69 said:
They are scum. The magistrate said nothing wrong IMO and they shouldn't have a leg to stand on.
Bit severe amputating their legs though.
Given what they did, i'd disagree!

WorAl

10,877 posts

218 months

Tuesday 18th May 2010
quotequote all
bazking69 said:
WorAl said:
bazking69 said:
They are scum. The magistrate said nothing wrong IMO and they shouldn't have a leg to stand on.
Bit severe amputating their legs though.
Given what they did, i'd disagree!
I was joking, but since you have come back, you think that someone who has vandalised a few books and some other stuff in a church, the richest organisation ever, should have their legs chopped off?

Timsta

2,779 posts

276 months

Tuesday 18th May 2010
quotequote all
WorAl said:
bazking69 said:
WorAl said:
bazking69 said:
They are scum. The magistrate said nothing wrong IMO and they shouldn't have a leg to stand on.
Bit severe amputating their legs though.
Given what they did, i'd disagree!
I was joking, but since you have come back, you think that someone who has vandalised a few books and some other stuff in a church, the richest organisation ever, should have their legs chopped off?
I don't have a problem with it.

The Beaver King

6,095 posts

225 months

Tuesday 18th May 2010
quotequote all
WorAl said:
bazking69 said:
WorAl said:
bazking69 said:
They are scum. The magistrate said nothing wrong IMO and they shouldn't have a leg to stand on.
Bit severe amputating their legs though.
Given what they did, i'd disagree!
I was joking, but since you have come back, you think that someone who has vandalised a few books and some other stuff in a church, the richest organisation ever, should have their legs chopped off?
They wouldn't do it again, would they?

Plus it would send a nice message to all the other fking retards out there.


LukeBird

17,170 posts

239 months

Tuesday 18th May 2010
quotequote all
bazking69 said:
They are scum. The magistrate said nothing wrong IMO and they shouldn't have a leg to stand on.
+1

Load of bks.

WorAl

10,877 posts

218 months

Tuesday 18th May 2010
quotequote all
Timsta said:
WorAl said:
bazking69 said:
WorAl said:
bazking69 said:
They are scum. The magistrate said nothing wrong IMO and they shouldn't have a leg to stand on.
Bit severe amputating their legs though.
Given what they did, i'd disagree!
I was joking, but since you have come back, you think that someone who has vandalised a few books and some other stuff in a church, the richest organisation ever, should have their legs chopped off?
I don't have a problem with it.
I do believe in corporal/capital punishment by the way, but I think cutting limbs off for vandalism is a bit much. 10 lashes and I bet they'd think twice about doing it again.

mel

10,168 posts

305 months

Tuesday 18th May 2010
quotequote all
Judges seem to be for ever in the papers for telling low life that they are indeed low life when summing up, why should a mag' be any different, surely after being found guilty what he said becomes a statement of fact.

Brewsters

Original Poster:

651 posts

199 months

Tuesday 18th May 2010
quotequote all
A magistrate who described two boys as "absolute scum" for vandalising Blackburn Cathedral has been warned he could face disciplinary action.

Austin Malloy has been removed from his post as chairman of the bench while he is investigated by the Judicial Office of Communications (JCO).

He criticised the two 16-year-olds at the town's youth court after they caused £3,000 worth of damage.

The JCO said what happened was currently being investigated.

The court was told that the teenagers, who cannot be named because of their ages, wrote sexual and racist graffiti on prayer books and bent an ancient St John the Baptist cross after being invited to have a look around the cathedral.

'Mindless act'

On sentencing them during Thursday's hearing, he said: "This court is disgusted by the mindless destruction you have caused. Normal people would consider you absolute scum."

Both boys were fined and given supervision orders.

Mr Malloy said the other magistrates agreed with his comments, but the clerk in the court stood up and said she objected to his description of them.

The part-time magistrate, who has been on the bench for the past 18 years, said: "I have no regrets whatsoever, I made an appropriate statement about what they had done.

"It was an unprovoked, terrible mindless act."

He has received countless messages of support after discovering he had to stand down as chairman of the bench while an investigation is carried out.

He said that no date for his return as chairman of the bench has been set.


What is so worrying is that there will be a 'full investigation' into the magistrate's comments. Eh? Let's just spend more of the tax payers money on this one shall we? fook me! Supervision orders for the culprits! Can't name them because of their age? They are both 16yrs old ffs! Print the wkers addresses, names etc....

Hopefully the Magistrate will be offered a sincere apology - and awarded compensation!


Jasandjules

72,628 posts

259 months

Tuesday 18th May 2010
quotequote all
WorAl said:
I was joking, but since you have come back, you think that someone who has vandalised a few books and some other stuff in a church, the richest organisation ever, should have their legs chopped off?
No, just break their arms. Then on the cast, in dayglo writing, but Vandal so that people they meet can see the scum that they are.

CraigW

12,248 posts

312 months

Tuesday 18th May 2010
quotequote all
He also stated that "normal people would brand you scum" Thats not the same as actually calling them it.

Ridiculous he should face any disciplinary proceedures for this though.

pokethepope

2,667 posts

218 months

Tuesday 18th May 2010
quotequote all
WorAl said:
bazking69 said:
WorAl said:
bazking69 said:
They are scum. The magistrate said nothing wrong IMO and they shouldn't have a leg to stand on.
Bit severe amputating their legs though.
Given what they did, i'd disagree!
I was joking, but since you have come back, you think that someone who has vandalised a few books and some other stuff in a church, the richest organisation ever, should have their legs chopped off?
Whats their wealth status got to do with it? If I clip the wing mirror of a Clio its bad, but if i do it to a Veyron its fine and I should just drive on because the guy can clearly afford to replace it?

Greedydog

975 posts

225 months

Tuesday 18th May 2010
quotequote all
Why shouldn't people be described as scum if that's what they are? A couple of years ago during a work presentation I described certain individuals as "scum", a few days later HR came calling as someone complained... now given that the individuals I described were variously found guilty of or subject to international arrest warrants for genocide, ethnic cleansing, murder, rape, fraud, money laundeing etc. I felt it was a pretty fair description (we're not talking one man's freedom fighter stuff here) and argued that all right minded people would share my opinion. Surely it's those who don't think despicable individuals can be described as such who should be getting questions asked of their character??

Edited by Greedydog on Tuesday 18th May 12:38