Advanced search

Dr Evil

(19 Posts)
MsHopey Mon 25-Mar-19 08:11:17

This case has been quite local to me, and I find it very hard go understand how he can be given such a long sentence considering the amount of murders we see with such a little amount of prison stay.
I will be the first to admit I'm not up to scratch with the law or politics, but this just doesn't sit right with me.
He had consent off all the individuals to perform the surgeries he did, and they have all come forward to say they are still happy with the work he did to them.
I am a bit alternative, but being honest the body modifications people have had done do still make me cringe, but I feel it's the individuals choice to have gone down the route.
I was just wondering what other peoples opinions were?
Does he deserve 3 years in prison for performing these modifications?

MsHopey Mon 25-Mar-19 08:14:02

Sorry, clearly I dont know how to do clicky links 🙄

Sonny23 Mon 25-Mar-19 08:26:19

This whole thing is a joke sad

Only the other night there was a programme where someone was distributing child porn and they got 18 months for it.

I've had work done by dr evil and he's the most professional and knowledgeable guy in the business.

Totally unfair that he got such a massive punishment.

Houseonahill Mon 25-Mar-19 08:30:07

What he was doing was surgery he was unregistered to perform which is a serious offence and should be punished. I also think he was made an example of to deter other people. I think the issue isn't with his sentence (although I agree it is harsh) but with the laughability of other sentences which in my eyes deserve harsher punishment, such as I know someone who got killed with one punch and the killer got 18 months. UK sentencing just makes no sense to me.

Timeforabiscuit Mon 25-Mar-19 08:30:26

Absolutely agree, he is being made an example of - though I would say what he was doing was the extreme end of body modification and he wasnt medically trained, perhaps it was only a matter of time until something went seriously wrong.

Do think the sentence is harsh,

CallMeCarolDanvers Mon 25-Mar-19 08:30:35

I think it's disgusting.

This man got only four more months for killing his girlfriend, claiming she liked rough sex and it just went a bit wrong. I am absolutely flabbergasted that someone carrying out non lethal, cosmetic procedures on consenting adults got a very similar sentence.

Tachy Mon 25-Mar-19 08:40:29

I think the length of the sentence is absurd but he preformed surgery without being qualified to do so.
I think the outrage is silly, he should definitely have been punished.

knitandpearl Mon 25-Mar-19 08:43:16

The judge's remarks might illuminate things, do you have the link?

knitandpearl Mon 25-Mar-19 08:45:07

Here it is:

BarbarianMum Mon 25-Mar-19 08:51:48

Im totally fine w the sentence. You shouldnt be allowed to do harm to people even if they want you to. This guy wasnt careful, he was lucky.

As for the case of that absolute bastard who claimed the woman "wanted" to be penetrated w a cleaning bottle (and who died of her injuries) that case was a total farce. Wrong charges, wrong verdict, wrong sentence.

MsHopey Mon 25-Mar-19 08:51:56

I do think he should be punished.
The law is the law, I think it might be more what a PP said, that most sentences are too light so this one now seems too harsh.
I would never have these modifications done, and I would never want to perform them on anyone. Ignorance of the law isn't a defence.
It's the super lenient sentences when judged next to this one that makes it a bit baffling.
I could probably bottle someone in a night club and cut their ear off and get less than 3 years tbh.

Tachy Mon 25-Mar-19 09:01:50

If you bottle someone in a club it was t planned whereas this man knew exactly what he was doing and planned to do so. It is a shame that sentences are usually too lenient.

RightOcciputAnterior Mon 25-Mar-19 09:13:44

The procedures he was undertaking were potentially dangerous. The tongue has lots of blood vessels. Tongue splitting carries a big risk of serious bleeding. So does cutting off someone's external ear - which also carries the risk of significant damage to surrounding nerves. Both of those procedures also have a hefty risk of infection. I'm sorry, but I don't think it should be legal to do those things, so I think it's fair enough that the law got involved.

sashh Mon 25-Mar-19 09:27:11

The law is the law, I think it might be more what a PP said, that most sentences are too light so this one now seems too harsh.

He has been prosecuted for GBH though. The actual written ruling linked to upthread actually talks about tattooing and ear piercing as ABH but because they are so common it doesn't occur to anyone to prosecute.

If you cannot consent to another person harming you then surely we should prosecute anyone who takes part in a boxing match, pierces ears or does non medical tattoos.

The law needs to be clarified and training developed.

Sonny23 Mon 25-Mar-19 09:39:47

Totally agree sashh

What I don't understand is, this is not a new thing. A lot of places offer various body modifications, tongue splitting, pixie ears, ear repairs etc and have done for many years. It wasn't a hidden thing.

And where is the line drawn? Will people be prosecuted for piercing? Tattooing?

Furrytoebean Mon 25-Mar-19 10:57:04

I actually agree with the sentence.

It doesn't matter if the people 'consented' you can't consent to being operated on by a someone not trained to do surgery.
We need to set clear precedents to stop backyard body modification shops.

I think the issue is that it should become regulated so people can apply to get trained and have a license to do these procedures.

We need to balance peoples right to do what they want with their bodies and peoples right not to be harmed.
It's right that there are some things that you just can't consent to.

Sonny23 Mon 25-Mar-19 11:12:00

I don't see how it could work though when there's so many blurry lines with it all iyswim?

Mothers are taking 6 week old babies into Claire's accessories to have their ears pierced with not suitably sterilised equipment, but apparently that's acceptable, yet people consenting to other body modifications isn't acceptable?

Driftingthoughlife Mon 25-Mar-19 11:18:58

Did anyone else think this thread was about the character from Austin Powers

Furrytoebean Mon 25-Mar-19 11:27:23

You need a license for piercing and tattoos, you have to follow certain safety rules to keep your license.

This doesn't cover surgical procedures such as mutilation and body part removal.

I'm not saying people shouldn't be able to get them done, I'm saying we need to regulate the industry so that people are properly trained to do it.
And if you aren't trained and licensed to cut off peoples body parts you shouldn't be doing it.

Join the discussion

Registering is free, quick, and means you can join in the discussion, watch threads, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Get started »