Fan mocking Bradley gets suspended sentence


Personally I won't be happy until he receives the blood eagle.

He is a dick and his life is ruined by what he has done, that is enough, people need to calm down a little.
The blood eagle should just be for starters.

The whole street, that he lives in, should be burnt to the ground with the occupants being impaled around the town.
 
Lost his job very lucky to get another one disowned by family & mates
banned from pubs in his local area

can easily get another job, move house if he wants, not sure why people are deeming public shaming as sufficient punishment
Publically shamed, lost his job, likely lost friends and or family, conviction to his name and will pop up immediately on any Google search of his name, plus 200 hours of community service.

The bloke is a dick head but there is no need for him to be in prison having tax payers money wasted on him.

"publically shamed" give over man
 
see above, it should have been 18 week jail sentence


"shamed on the internet" give over man ffs
Unless you have very intimate knowledge (ie you were the prosecutor or defence solicitor for both cases) you can't really compare. Did both plead guilty /admit responsibility? At what stage? What previous convictions if any did they both have?

Plus the one you are comparing took pre planning and effort, targeted more than one person and not a spur of the moment stupid act so even if the did have EXACTLY the same previous it's probably right he got a harsher punishment
see above 18 weeks jail sentence has been given for similar, this was an absolute whitewash
Whitewash 🤣. Sorry mate you are letting your emotions cloud better judgement here
 

Jailing him for 18 weeks, the chair of the bench, Paul Warren, told him: "You have caused untold distress to already grieving friends and family.

"The offences are so serious only a custodial sentence could be justified."
I would say there are some distinct differences between the two cases which mean you cannot compare them like for like.

In both instances offences would come under section 5 of the public order act - harassment and distress.

The actions in the link you sent are far more severe because:

1. The individual targeted family members directly about the loss of their loved ones instead of a bloke waving a picture at some other football fans.

2. The person in the link you posted undertook a targeted and premeditated campaign with clear planning and repeated activity to cause direct distress and maximum hurt to multiple specific individuals over a protracted period of time making it a much clearer and more severe case of harrassment. In the other instance we have a one off instance of a bloke waving a picture on a phone at a football match to some other football fans who are not the family of Bradley. Its a football fan mocking some other football fans in a very unpleasant way.

For these two reasons the offence of the other individual is far more severe.

I hope the family of Bradley Lowery have not suffered too much from this episode but they are the only ones who can talk about any distress that this may have caused.
 
Unless you have very intimate knowledge (ie you were the prosecutor or defence solicitor for both cases) you can't really compare. Did both plead guilty /admit responsibility? At what stage? What previous convictions if any did they both have?

Plus the one you are comparing took pre planning and effort, targeted more than one person and not a spur of the moment stupid act so even if the did have EXACTLY the same previous it's probably right he got a harsher punishment

obviously its not exactly the same, all cases are different, that one was social media, this one was real life. It was purely a reference point to get some idea of appropriate sentences.
I would say there are some distinct differences between the two cases which mean you cannot compare them like for like.

In both instances offences would come under section 5 of the public order act - harassment and distress.

The actions in the link you sent are far more severe because:

1. The individual targeted family members directly about the loss of their loved ones instead of a bloke waving a picture at some other football fans.

2. The person in the link you posted undertook a targeted and premeditated campaign with clear planning and repeated activity to cause direct distress and maximum hurt to multiple specific individuals over a protracted period of time making it a much clearer and more severe case of harrassment. In the other instance we have a one off instance of a bloke waving a picture on a phone at a football match to some other football fans who are not the family of Bradley. Its a football fan mocking some other football fans in a very unpleasant way.

For these two reasons the offence of the other individual is far more severe.

I hope the family of Bradley Lowery have not suffered too much from this episode but they are the only ones who can talk about any distress that this may have caused.

see above
 
On average the cost in Britain of keeping someone in jail for a year is over £46,000

Proven reoffending varies between 25% and 33%

Prisons are full - imprisoning this lad would mean releasing some other convicted offender

Maybe the lynch mob might want to reflect?

What he did was stupid and callous - the sentence imposed gives him an opportunity to reflect on that and maybe do something to reset the balance?
 
obviously its not exactly the same, all cases are different, that one was social media, this one was real life. It was purely a reference point to get some idea of appropriate sentences.


see above
You're confusing me now, as you described the sentence as a white wash and massively lenient using the 18 week sentence thing to justify your opinion. Now you seem to agree they are not really comparable, even before you consider previous convictions and guilty plea time etc
 
You're confusing me now, as you described the sentence as a white wash and massively lenient using the 18 week sentence thing to justify your opinion. Now you seem to agree they are not really comparable, even before you consider previous convictions and guilty plea time etc

of course they are comparable, but no case is exactly the same

both involved people causing distress to grieving friends and family
 
It's two totally different cases and circumstances?
Exactly. Two clear distinctions.

1. One case involved directly targeting the family and one didnt.

2. One case involved repeated targeting and a campaign of abuse over a prolonged period of time and one didnt.
 
FootballFan has to have some of the worst takes on this forum.
You will get this reported as he has just reported mine for being off topic mate 👍.
Exactly. Two clear distinctions.

1. One case involved directly targeting the family and one didnt.

2. One case involved repeated targeting and a campaign of abuse over a prolonged period of time and one didnt.
👏
 
of course they are comparable, but no case is exactly the same

both involved people causing distress to grieving friends and family
If you're going to draw comparison then you have to look at other cases of tragedy chanting. Like I said earlier a Spurs fan only got a 3 year ban and fined for chanting stuff about Hillsborough. This lad has received a considerably harsher sentence. The CPS only consider this a civil offence and only usually recommend bans. It was impossible for the magistrate to be any harder.
 

Back
Top