Southampton taxi driver Gurmit Roath spared jail after pub brawl

Gurmit Roath

Gurmit Roath

First published in News
Last updated

A SOUTHAMPTON taxi driver who sparked a violent brawl in a city pub has been spared jail.

Gurmit Roath was captured on CCTV shown in court, violently pulling one man who went crashing to the ground before trying to kick him, leading to an eruption of violence at the Dorchester Arms pub.

Southampton Crown Court heard how pool cues and furniture were brandished as weapons until shocked bystanders stepped in to stop the attack.

As previously reported, Roath, of Bassett Avenue, Southampton, had admitted affray at an earlier hearing but his sentence was adjourned pending a medical report.

During the hearing last month, the court heard that the trouble had started after the 50-year-old became involved in a “heated” dispute about who should be buying the drinks.

Yesterday defence barrister David Lyons told the court Roath was eventually provoked into violence following repeated insults, including remarks about his mother.

“It was unforgivable and it started the fight,” he explained.

“He was very quickly taken away to a back room as the free-for-all broke out at a time when wiser and older heads should have prevailed.

Related links

“His involvement was brief. Neither side could claim the higher moral ground but whatever the provocation he knows he should not have snapped.”

Mr Lyons said Roath had since undergone surgery for colon cancer and it was unlikely that he would return to his job.

He added: “He now lives on invalidity benefit and the charity of his family.”

Passing a 12-month suspended sentence, Recorder Alistair Malcolm QC, who was shown the CCTV footage, told Roath that whatever the provocation, there was no excuse for throwing someone on the ground and kicking at him.

He said: “As a result of your actions, a free-for-all started and great deal of violence and damage was caused.

“If you had not started it, it would not have happened.”

In addition to the suspended sentence, Roath has to observe a six-month curfew and has been barred from any establishment where alcohol can be used, for a similar period.

His two sons, Jaswant Singh, 30, and Satnam Singh, 27, both of Bassett Avenue, as well as his nephew Shakti Roath,28, of Bitterne Road East, were given nine-month suspended terms at the earlier hearing last month after they had admitted affray.

As a result of their appearance in court, Conservative Caroline Nokes urged city council chiefs to get tough with the drivers after a constituent protested that they had returned to their jobs.

Comments (23)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

11:01am Tue 8 Apr 14

camerajuan says...

Joke. Plain & simple jail term right there. Work history and medical status doesn't excuse you from the law.
Joke. Plain & simple jail term right there. Work history and medical status doesn't excuse you from the law. camerajuan
  • Score: 22

11:10am Tue 8 Apr 14

Charlie Bucket says...

camerajuan wrote:
Joke. Plain & simple jail term right there. Work history and medical status doesn't excuse you from the law.
It hasn't. He's still been convicted.
[quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: Joke. Plain & simple jail term right there. Work history and medical status doesn't excuse you from the law.[/p][/quote]It hasn't. He's still been convicted. Charlie Bucket
  • Score: 1

11:17am Tue 8 Apr 14

Norwegian Saint says...

Do they all lose their licenses now? Or are people unsafe in the back of cabs where people with criminal records drive them around?
Do they all lose their licenses now? Or are people unsafe in the back of cabs where people with criminal records drive them around? Norwegian Saint
  • Score: 19

11:32am Tue 8 Apr 14

camerajuan says...

Charlie Bucket wrote:
camerajuan wrote:
Joke. Plain & simple jail term right there. Work history and medical status doesn't excuse you from the law.
It hasn't. He's still been convicted.
If that's the punishment for starting a bar brawl with a record then why do we even bother with a trial?
[quote][p][bold]Charlie Bucket[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: Joke. Plain & simple jail term right there. Work history and medical status doesn't excuse you from the law.[/p][/quote]It hasn't. He's still been convicted.[/p][/quote]If that's the punishment for starting a bar brawl with a record then why do we even bother with a trial? camerajuan
  • Score: 11

11:55am Tue 8 Apr 14

teamgreen says...

boo fracking hoo, played the sick and family card gets a smack on the wrist. drunken squaddies,music lovers,bikers in a bar all would have got a far stiffer sentence.all the family should have their cabbie plates taken away from them and banned from doing so again.
boo fracking hoo, played the sick and family card gets a smack on the wrist. drunken squaddies,music lovers,bikers in a bar all would have got a far stiffer sentence.all the family should have their cabbie plates taken away from them and banned from doing so again. teamgreen
  • Score: 18

11:56am Tue 8 Apr 14

Charlie Bucket says...

camerajuan wrote:
Charlie Bucket wrote:
camerajuan wrote:
Joke. Plain & simple jail term right there. Work history and medical status doesn't excuse you from the law.
It hasn't. He's still been convicted.
If that's the punishment for starting a bar brawl with a record then why do we even bother with a trial?
That's another matter. You claimed he had been excused from the law, and he hasn't. "The law" doesn't just mean "lock everyone up forever", you know.
[quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Charlie Bucket[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: Joke. Plain & simple jail term right there. Work history and medical status doesn't excuse you from the law.[/p][/quote]It hasn't. He's still been convicted.[/p][/quote]If that's the punishment for starting a bar brawl with a record then why do we even bother with a trial?[/p][/quote]That's another matter. You claimed he had been excused from the law, and he hasn't. "The law" doesn't just mean "lock everyone up forever", you know. Charlie Bucket
  • Score: -6

11:58am Tue 8 Apr 14

Charlie Bucket says...

Norwegian Saint wrote:
Do they all lose their licenses now? Or are people unsafe in the back of cabs where people with criminal records drive them around?
That's right. Anyone with a criminal record is automatically going to assault their passengers every single time, we're not safe.
[quote][p][bold]Norwegian Saint[/bold] wrote: Do they all lose their licenses now? Or are people unsafe in the back of cabs where people with criminal records drive them around?[/p][/quote]That's right. Anyone with a criminal record is automatically going to assault their passengers every single time, we're not safe. Charlie Bucket
  • Score: -7

12:05pm Tue 8 Apr 14

Walter K says...

General Custer was obviously right about the sale of Whisky....
General Custer was obviously right about the sale of Whisky.... Walter K
  • Score: 9

12:09pm Tue 8 Apr 14

bigfella777 says...

Last week somebody got away with actual murder. I would say that is a bit more worrying than a pub scuffle.
Last week somebody got away with actual murder. I would say that is a bit more worrying than a pub scuffle. bigfella777
  • Score: -8

12:23pm Tue 8 Apr 14

Charlie Bucket says...

bigfella777 wrote:
Last week somebody got away with actual murder. I would say that is a bit more worrying than a pub scuffle.
Where?
[quote][p][bold]bigfella777[/bold] wrote: Last week somebody got away with actual murder. I would say that is a bit more worrying than a pub scuffle.[/p][/quote]Where? Charlie Bucket
  • Score: -1

1:11pm Tue 8 Apr 14

camerajuan says...

Charlie Bucket wrote:
camerajuan wrote:
Charlie Bucket wrote:
camerajuan wrote:
Joke. Plain & simple jail term right there. Work history and medical status doesn't excuse you from the law.
It hasn't. He's still been convicted.
If that's the punishment for starting a bar brawl with a record then why do we even bother with a trial?
That's another matter. You claimed he had been excused from the law, and he hasn't. "The law" doesn't just mean "lock everyone up forever", you know.
Oh read between the lines before you start putting words in my mouth, come on.

This man and all involved in this pathetic bar brawl had criminal records. As the instigator, he should be looking at jail time. Instead what has happened, is that the courts have now set a precedent. This will be used as an example for years to come to allow people who do this to walk free with a fine and a black mark next to their name. Ridiculous decision.

If you think he didn't deserve a custodial sentence you obviously don't understand much about justice and appropriate punishment.
[quote][p][bold]Charlie Bucket[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Charlie Bucket[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: Joke. Plain & simple jail term right there. Work history and medical status doesn't excuse you from the law.[/p][/quote]It hasn't. He's still been convicted.[/p][/quote]If that's the punishment for starting a bar brawl with a record then why do we even bother with a trial?[/p][/quote]That's another matter. You claimed he had been excused from the law, and he hasn't. "The law" doesn't just mean "lock everyone up forever", you know.[/p][/quote]Oh read between the lines before you start putting words in my mouth, come on. This man and all involved in this pathetic bar brawl had criminal records. As the instigator, he should be looking at jail time. Instead what has happened, is that the courts have now set a precedent. This will be used as an example for years to come to allow people who do this to walk free with a fine and a black mark next to their name. Ridiculous decision. If you think he didn't deserve a custodial sentence you obviously don't understand much about justice and appropriate punishment. camerajuan
  • Score: 11

1:47pm Tue 8 Apr 14

andyb201084 says...

how many times is this same event going to be in the echo or on this website think this is about the 5th or 6th time in the last 3or4 weeks.
I feel sorry for the new landlord that have recently taken over this pub.
not more the a month or 2 ago that somthing that happened before they was landload and he/she is the one who's probably losing customers over not much more then a bit of pushng and shoving that hapened last year before he/she had anything to do with this pub
think its poor of the ECHO to have not put this in the 5/6 articles that have been reported about this so called fight and could of at least had a chat with them for this story hear what they have to say about it .
how many times is this same event going to be in the echo or on this website think this is about the 5th or 6th time in the last 3or4 weeks. I feel sorry for the new landlord that have recently taken over this pub. not more the a month or 2 ago that somthing that happened before they was landload and he/she is the one who's probably losing customers over not much more then a bit of pushng and shoving that hapened last year before he/she had anything to do with this pub think its poor of the ECHO to have not put this in the 5/6 articles that have been reported about this so called fight and could of at least had a chat with them for this story hear what they have to say about it . andyb201084
  • Score: 3

2:30pm Tue 8 Apr 14

Charlie Bucket says...

camerajuan wrote:
Charlie Bucket wrote:
camerajuan wrote:
Charlie Bucket wrote:
camerajuan wrote:
Joke. Plain & simple jail term right there. Work history and medical status doesn't excuse you from the law.
It hasn't. He's still been convicted.
If that's the punishment for starting a bar brawl with a record then why do we even bother with a trial?
That's another matter. You claimed he had been excused from the law, and he hasn't. "The law" doesn't just mean "lock everyone up forever", you know.
Oh read between the lines before you start putting words in my mouth, come on.

This man and all involved in this pathetic bar brawl had criminal records. As the instigator, he should be looking at jail time. Instead what has happened, is that the courts have now set a precedent. This will be used as an example for years to come to allow people who do this to walk free with a fine and a black mark next to their name. Ridiculous decision.

If you think he didn't deserve a custodial sentence you obviously don't understand much about justice and appropriate punishment.
See: begging the question
[quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Charlie Bucket[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Charlie Bucket[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: Joke. Plain & simple jail term right there. Work history and medical status doesn't excuse you from the law.[/p][/quote]It hasn't. He's still been convicted.[/p][/quote]If that's the punishment for starting a bar brawl with a record then why do we even bother with a trial?[/p][/quote]That's another matter. You claimed he had been excused from the law, and he hasn't. "The law" doesn't just mean "lock everyone up forever", you know.[/p][/quote]Oh read between the lines before you start putting words in my mouth, come on. This man and all involved in this pathetic bar brawl had criminal records. As the instigator, he should be looking at jail time. Instead what has happened, is that the courts have now set a precedent. This will be used as an example for years to come to allow people who do this to walk free with a fine and a black mark next to their name. Ridiculous decision. If you think he didn't deserve a custodial sentence you obviously don't understand much about justice and appropriate punishment.[/p][/quote]See: begging the question Charlie Bucket
  • Score: 1

3:00pm Tue 8 Apr 14

camerajuan says...

Charlie Bucket wrote:
camerajuan wrote:
Charlie Bucket wrote:
camerajuan wrote:
Charlie Bucket wrote:
camerajuan wrote:
Joke. Plain & simple jail term right there. Work history and medical status doesn't excuse you from the law.
It hasn't. He's still been convicted.
If that's the punishment for starting a bar brawl with a record then why do we even bother with a trial?
That's another matter. You claimed he had been excused from the law, and he hasn't. "The law" doesn't just mean "lock everyone up forever", you know.
Oh read between the lines before you start putting words in my mouth, come on.

This man and all involved in this pathetic bar brawl had criminal records. As the instigator, he should be looking at jail time. Instead what has happened, is that the courts have now set a precedent. This will be used as an example for years to come to allow people who do this to walk free with a fine and a black mark next to their name. Ridiculous decision.

If you think he didn't deserve a custodial sentence you obviously don't understand much about justice and appropriate punishment.
See: begging the question
Seen it. Not sure its relevant.

My point is - This crime deserved jail with the history of the criminal and the historical precedents set every year for lesser crimes which saw the defendant imprisoned. For some reason, he is not going to jail. Justice has, in this case and another detailed today, not dished out the appropriate punishment for the crime.
[quote][p][bold]Charlie Bucket[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Charlie Bucket[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Charlie Bucket[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: Joke. Plain & simple jail term right there. Work history and medical status doesn't excuse you from the law.[/p][/quote]It hasn't. He's still been convicted.[/p][/quote]If that's the punishment for starting a bar brawl with a record then why do we even bother with a trial?[/p][/quote]That's another matter. You claimed he had been excused from the law, and he hasn't. "The law" doesn't just mean "lock everyone up forever", you know.[/p][/quote]Oh read between the lines before you start putting words in my mouth, come on. This man and all involved in this pathetic bar brawl had criminal records. As the instigator, he should be looking at jail time. Instead what has happened, is that the courts have now set a precedent. This will be used as an example for years to come to allow people who do this to walk free with a fine and a black mark next to their name. Ridiculous decision. If you think he didn't deserve a custodial sentence you obviously don't understand much about justice and appropriate punishment.[/p][/quote]See: begging the question[/p][/quote]Seen it. Not sure its relevant. My point is - This crime deserved jail with the history of the criminal and the historical precedents set every year for lesser crimes which saw the defendant imprisoned. For some reason, he is not going to jail. Justice has, in this case and another detailed today, not dished out the appropriate punishment for the crime. camerajuan
  • Score: 6

4:29pm Tue 8 Apr 14

Zootopian says...

andyb201084 wrote:
how many times is this same event going to be in the echo or on this website think this is about the 5th or 6th time in the last 3or4 weeks.
I feel sorry for the new landlord that have recently taken over this pub.
not more the a month or 2 ago that somthing that happened before they was landload and he/she is the one who's probably losing customers over not much more then a bit of pushng and shoving that hapened last year before he/she had anything to do with this pub
think its poor of the ECHO to have not put this in the 5/6 articles that have been reported about this so called fight and could of at least had a chat with them for this story hear what they have to say about it .
I think it's 'poor' for people to get involved in a brawl in a pub.

I'd be more worried than that than a newspaper reporting what a court has decided to do with a convicted criminal.

Besides, this (the sentencing) happened yesterday and newspapers report what happens in court rooms. If you don't like reading about the justice system, I suggest you don't click stories about people being done for breaking the law.
[quote][p][bold]andyb201084[/bold] wrote: how many times is this same event going to be in the echo or on this website think this is about the 5th or 6th time in the last 3or4 weeks. I feel sorry for the new landlord that have recently taken over this pub. not more the a month or 2 ago that somthing that happened before they was landload and he/she is the one who's probably losing customers over not much more then a bit of pushng and shoving that hapened last year before he/she had anything to do with this pub think its poor of the ECHO to have not put this in the 5/6 articles that have been reported about this so called fight and could of at least had a chat with them for this story hear what they have to say about it .[/p][/quote]I think it's 'poor' for people to get involved in a brawl in a pub. I'd be more worried than that than a newspaper reporting what a court has decided to do with a convicted criminal. Besides, this (the sentencing) happened yesterday and newspapers report what happens in court rooms. If you don't like reading about the justice system, I suggest you don't click stories about people being done for breaking the law. Zootopian
  • Score: 2

5:20pm Tue 8 Apr 14

Fatty x Ford Worker says...

Taxi dont speak English no thanks!
Taxi dont speak English no thanks! Fatty x Ford Worker
  • Score: 1

5:21pm Tue 8 Apr 14

andyb201084 says...

Zootopian wrote:
andyb201084 wrote:
how many times is this same event going to be in the echo or on this website think this is about the 5th or 6th time in the last 3or4 weeks.
I feel sorry for the new landlord that have recently taken over this pub.
not more the a month or 2 ago that somthing that happened before they was landload and he/she is the one who's probably losing customers over not much more then a bit of pushng and shoving that hapened last year before he/she had anything to do with this pub
think its poor of the ECHO to have not put this in the 5/6 articles that have been reported about this so called fight and could of at least had a chat with them for this story hear what they have to say about it .
I think it's 'poor' for people to get involved in a brawl in a pub.

I'd be more worried than that than a newspaper reporting what a court has decided to do with a convicted criminal.

Besides, this (the sentencing) happened yesterday and newspapers report what happens in court rooms. If you don't like reading about the justice system, I suggest you don't click stories about people being done for breaking the law.
you completely missed my point no need to affect someone's business by running the same story 5or6 times in a month there are far worse thing happening every day in this city and in the same courts but they are not reported in the ECHO
[quote][p][bold]Zootopian[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]andyb201084[/bold] wrote: how many times is this same event going to be in the echo or on this website think this is about the 5th or 6th time in the last 3or4 weeks. I feel sorry for the new landlord that have recently taken over this pub. not more the a month or 2 ago that somthing that happened before they was landload and he/she is the one who's probably losing customers over not much more then a bit of pushng and shoving that hapened last year before he/she had anything to do with this pub think its poor of the ECHO to have not put this in the 5/6 articles that have been reported about this so called fight and could of at least had a chat with them for this story hear what they have to say about it .[/p][/quote]I think it's 'poor' for people to get involved in a brawl in a pub. I'd be more worried than that than a newspaper reporting what a court has decided to do with a convicted criminal. Besides, this (the sentencing) happened yesterday and newspapers report what happens in court rooms. If you don't like reading about the justice system, I suggest you don't click stories about people being done for breaking the law.[/p][/quote]you completely missed my point no need to affect someone's business by running the same story 5or6 times in a month there are far worse thing happening every day in this city and in the same courts but they are not reported in the ECHO andyb201084
  • Score: 3

6:02pm Tue 8 Apr 14

Charlie Bucket says...

camerajuan wrote:
Charlie Bucket wrote:
camerajuan wrote:
Charlie Bucket wrote:
camerajuan wrote:
Charlie Bucket wrote:
camerajuan wrote:
Joke. Plain & simple jail term right there. Work history and medical status doesn't excuse you from the law.
It hasn't. He's still been convicted.
If that's the punishment for starting a bar brawl with a record then why do we even bother with a trial?
That's another matter. You claimed he had been excused from the law, and he hasn't. "The law" doesn't just mean "lock everyone up forever", you know.
Oh read between the lines before you start putting words in my mouth, come on.

This man and all involved in this pathetic bar brawl had criminal records. As the instigator, he should be looking at jail time. Instead what has happened, is that the courts have now set a precedent. This will be used as an example for years to come to allow people who do this to walk free with a fine and a black mark next to their name. Ridiculous decision.

If you think he didn't deserve a custodial sentence you obviously don't understand much about justice and appropriate punishment.
See: begging the question
Seen it. Not sure its relevant.

My point is - This crime deserved jail with the history of the criminal and the historical precedents set every year for lesser crimes which saw the defendant imprisoned. For some reason, he is not going to jail. Justice has, in this case and another detailed today, not dished out the appropriate punishment for the crime.
"Begging the question" is very much relevant, as you're doing exactly that.
[quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Charlie Bucket[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Charlie Bucket[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Charlie Bucket[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: Joke. Plain & simple jail term right there. Work history and medical status doesn't excuse you from the law.[/p][/quote]It hasn't. He's still been convicted.[/p][/quote]If that's the punishment for starting a bar brawl with a record then why do we even bother with a trial?[/p][/quote]That's another matter. You claimed he had been excused from the law, and he hasn't. "The law" doesn't just mean "lock everyone up forever", you know.[/p][/quote]Oh read between the lines before you start putting words in my mouth, come on. This man and all involved in this pathetic bar brawl had criminal records. As the instigator, he should be looking at jail time. Instead what has happened, is that the courts have now set a precedent. This will be used as an example for years to come to allow people who do this to walk free with a fine and a black mark next to their name. Ridiculous decision. If you think he didn't deserve a custodial sentence you obviously don't understand much about justice and appropriate punishment.[/p][/quote]See: begging the question[/p][/quote]Seen it. Not sure its relevant. My point is - This crime deserved jail with the history of the criminal and the historical precedents set every year for lesser crimes which saw the defendant imprisoned. For some reason, he is not going to jail. Justice has, in this case and another detailed today, not dished out the appropriate punishment for the crime.[/p][/quote]"Begging the question" is very much relevant, as you're doing exactly that. Charlie Bucket
  • Score: 2

6:36pm Tue 8 Apr 14

hard talk so14 says...

How many times is the echo gonna put this story in as it just a stupid pub fight.
Also the fact the echo could do with finding real story's that the public would take interest in!! Or Are they just trying to fil the empty space in the paper???!! The creditability of caroline nokes who was caught cheating on her poor husband with a toy boy lover!!! Who has a young daughter with her husband Marc. Who claimed she was at work but instead was in hotels room in London!! She claimed she to attractive to be a polition!! Maybe she in the wrong job!!
Why don't people judge them self before judging others!
For the 4 cabbies involved the court has served them there punishment ad the council will do there job. So pls let them be.
Can we please be adults about this and let the right authoritys do there job!!
How many times is the echo gonna put this story in as it just a stupid pub fight. Also the fact the echo could do with finding real story's that the public would take interest in!! Or Are they just trying to fil the empty space in the paper???!! The creditability of caroline nokes who was caught cheating on her poor husband with a toy boy lover!!! Who has a young daughter with her husband Marc. Who claimed she was at work but instead was in hotels room in London!! She claimed she to attractive to be a polition!! Maybe she in the wrong job!! Why don't people judge them self before judging others! For the 4 cabbies involved the court has served them there punishment ad the council will do there job. So pls let them be. Can we please be adults about this and let the right authoritys do there job!! hard talk so14
  • Score: 12

7:36pm Tue 8 Apr 14

NotoNwo says...

Send them to patrol the streets of Jalander, they can do with some heavyhanded police officers.
Send them to patrol the streets of Jalander, they can do with some heavyhanded police officers. NotoNwo
  • Score: -4

7:39pm Tue 8 Apr 14

joannaright1093 says...

Seriously need get over this, how many pub fights have happened before. Stop wasting time debating an issue that has been dealt with already, they are being punished! The real threats are rapists and pedofiles, leave these taxi driver alone!
Seriously need get over this, how many pub fights have happened before. Stop wasting time debating an issue that has been dealt with already, they are being punished! The real threats are rapists and pedofiles, leave these taxi driver alone! joannaright1093
  • Score: 3

12:58pm Wed 9 Apr 14

southcom says...

I don't understand how this guy can be on benefits, when he owns 3 properties on Alfred street Southampton?
I don't understand how this guy can be on benefits, when he owns 3 properties on Alfred street Southampton? southcom
  • Score: 2

3:05pm Wed 9 Apr 14

camerajuan says...

Charlie Bucket wrote:
camerajuan wrote:
Charlie Bucket wrote:
camerajuan wrote:
Charlie Bucket wrote:
camerajuan wrote:
Charlie Bucket wrote:
camerajuan wrote:
Joke. Plain & simple jail term right there. Work history and medical status doesn't excuse you from the law.
It hasn't. He's still been convicted.
If that's the punishment for starting a bar brawl with a record then why do we even bother with a trial?
That's another matter. You claimed he had been excused from the law, and he hasn't. "The law" doesn't just mean "lock everyone up forever", you know.
Oh read between the lines before you start putting words in my mouth, come on.

This man and all involved in this pathetic bar brawl had criminal records. As the instigator, he should be looking at jail time. Instead what has happened, is that the courts have now set a precedent. This will be used as an example for years to come to allow people who do this to walk free with a fine and a black mark next to their name. Ridiculous decision.

If you think he didn't deserve a custodial sentence you obviously don't understand much about justice and appropriate punishment.
See: begging the question
Seen it. Not sure its relevant.

My point is - This crime deserved jail with the history of the criminal and the historical precedents set every year for lesser crimes which saw the defendant imprisoned. For some reason, he is not going to jail. Justice has, in this case and another detailed today, not dished out the appropriate punishment for the crime.
"Begging the question" is very much relevant, as you're doing exactly that.
Avoiding my point is exactly what you keep doing.
[quote][p][bold]Charlie Bucket[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Charlie Bucket[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Charlie Bucket[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Charlie Bucket[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: Joke. Plain & simple jail term right there. Work history and medical status doesn't excuse you from the law.[/p][/quote]It hasn't. He's still been convicted.[/p][/quote]If that's the punishment for starting a bar brawl with a record then why do we even bother with a trial?[/p][/quote]That's another matter. You claimed he had been excused from the law, and he hasn't. "The law" doesn't just mean "lock everyone up forever", you know.[/p][/quote]Oh read between the lines before you start putting words in my mouth, come on. This man and all involved in this pathetic bar brawl had criminal records. As the instigator, he should be looking at jail time. Instead what has happened, is that the courts have now set a precedent. This will be used as an example for years to come to allow people who do this to walk free with a fine and a black mark next to their name. Ridiculous decision. If you think he didn't deserve a custodial sentence you obviously don't understand much about justice and appropriate punishment.[/p][/quote]See: begging the question[/p][/quote]Seen it. Not sure its relevant. My point is - This crime deserved jail with the history of the criminal and the historical precedents set every year for lesser crimes which saw the defendant imprisoned. For some reason, he is not going to jail. Justice has, in this case and another detailed today, not dished out the appropriate punishment for the crime.[/p][/quote]"Begging the question" is very much relevant, as you're doing exactly that.[/p][/quote]Avoiding my point is exactly what you keep doing. camerajuan
  • Score: 1

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree