Curiously, despite the conviction of Fireman Ed aka
The Other Rich Marxist Twerp Called Ed, the MSM has not
spent the day reminding us about every time a Labour MP referred to 'fighting fire with fire'.
Of course, this case is difficult for the usual suspects for other reasons. They've spent years telling us poverty causes crime, but now it turns out that it's poor little rich kids who are the biggest victims of all. How else to explain the court's desperate bending over backwards to avoid the obvious?
[Judge Geoffrey Rivlin QC] also praised the teenager's mother for encouraging him to give himself up to police after he was pictured by media organisations during the rioting.
Yes, indeed: after having his picture plastered over every newstand in the country for five days, she encouraged him to turn himself in, as opposed to disappearing into Sherwood Forest and living off nuts and berries, presumably.
A vote of thanks also to his class mates, teachers and fellow residents of the Dibden Purlieu millionaire's sink estate, all of who were perfectly happy to spend five days not reporting that they had a thug in their midst. We're just lucky Dibden Purlieu isn't in Liverpool, otherwise Richard Littlejohn would get his next 15 columns out of this case.
Not that I want to inject a class war theme into this - I'll leave that to the judge:
The judge said: "It is deeply regrettable, indeed a shocking thing, for a court to have sentence a young man such as you to a substantial term of custody.
It's shocking to sentence a violent thug to custody? Isn't that kind of the point of the whole 'courts' thing? And no, it's not a substantial term by any kind of historic or global standard.
The judge also said he took into account the defendant's age, his guilty plea at the earliest opportunity and the fact that he had no previous convictions.
Yes, he pleaded guilty after his crime was shown live on national TV.
I'm more sympathetic to the age thing though. After all, there's plenty of 18 year olds so juvenile and irresponsible, they're still busy playing in the sand pit.
I guess we need to update that scorecard again: abortion without parental notification is fine for 12 year olds, but 18 is too young to be held responsible for their actions? Best stop them doing anything dangerous like drinking, driving or voting then, right? Or, at least, just the ones who don't realise that throwing things off a tall building 'potentially endangered people' (although the fact this guy was hoping to go to Uni in the first place does kind of suggest that funding
isn't the biggest problem in Academia right now).
And if that's not enough, there's this:
Before sentencing, the judge retired for 15 minutes and Woollard, who has 10 GCSEs, was given a chance to speak to his relatives.
They probably do the same in Newcastle Crown Court, right? Right after they've heard the guilty party explain that he wasn't aiming a bottle at
someone's head, he was aiming it with
All of which is by way of saying enough about the Underclass already. Not that we don't have a barrel load of chav scum, but the fish rots from the head. As long as folks like the repulsive Woolard clan, people who've had every advantage in life, are prepared to try and cheat justice, and the courts are prepared to let them, why should anyone else respect the law?