Active discussions

Help protect children from gaming harms.

Take our survey

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Politics
Original poster

Fire extinguisher throwing eighteen year old

31 replies

dotnet · 11/01/2011 16:16

So, what do MNers think about the two year eight month prison sentence handed out to - is his name Edward Bullard? - the 18-year old who stupidly threw a fire extinguisher from the Conservative HQ roof in November?
What do I think? Well, if that's the sort of sentence meted out to someone who behaves stupidly, but doesn't actually hurt anybody...
There'll be a similar sentence, then, for the bully boy cop who threw the wheelchair-bound student to the ground TWICE at the December demonstration?
And it's got to be - how long - eight years? ten? more? for the vicious individual who batoned Alfie Meadows and put him into intensive care subsequent to neurosurgery?

Or doesn't British justice work like that?

OP posts:
New posts on this thread. Refresh page
complimentary · 16/01/2011 23:11

looktowindwood. That idiot who pissed on the cenotaph was not only 'pissing on middle England', but everyone who fought in all wars and had family, and those who care about the above.

I'm afraid Edward and our dear freind who pissed on the cenotaph our of the same mould, basically daft, with no common sense. Both also have lack of respect for others, a dangerous lack of respect in Edward's case.

We all know that politicians are disingenious, mandacious, etc; but we have to behave and remove them in other ways, I'm not talking about the Tories, but all politicians, who do not respect the peoples' wishes.

Incarcerating Edward for so long, does not protect the public. I did feel the sentence too long, but he had to pay for his stupidity.

Original poster
dotnet · 16/01/2011 19:00

We don't disagree really then, complimentary - I'd have wanted to give him a fortnight inside, followed by community service. But I'm told hybrid sentences like that aren't possible, so in that case I'd choose community service for him, so he'd be doing something useful.
Bel Mooney of the Daily Mail says she thinks 3 months inside would be about right for what he did.
If you twisted my arm I might concede to that, as a maximum.

Then he'd be able to get into university this year and not have to put himself into the extraordinary amount of debt children of non-loaded parents may be forced to accept in 2012. Angry

OP posts:
complimentary · 16/01/2011 12:35

Dotnet. You cannot defend someone throwing a fire extinquisher from three floors up! I do think that the sentence was too long, he had to have a custodial sentence as the crime was so serious.

Many people can get 'fired up' but they would not endanger other peoples' lives. That is the difference.

When I was younger, I would probably have entered the Connsevative HQ building, not realising that I would have probably got a criminal record! Grin

I have been on many student demos when I was younger, but would definately try to stop someone from endangering others lives or attacking people/cars. (i.e. The Royals car).
Demonstrate yes, but there has IMO to be a limit. Edward will unfortunately be incarcerated with some people who are seriously disturbed, but that is price he is now paying for his stupid actions.

Original poster
dotnet · 16/01/2011 11:38

looktowindward Edward Woollard wasn't a hugely privileged Cambridge undergraduate, he was a schoolboy.
Are you referring to some other aspect of the demonstration involving a Cambridge undergraduate?
Oh - hang on - I think you're thinking of the pop star son and the Cenotaph.
Loads and loads of apologies came from that quarter and that was a case of idiocy as well.
I bet a high proportion of the dead of WW2 commemmorated by the Cenotaph would have sympathised with the purpose of the students' demonstration though.
You don't suddenly become a lickspittle of the boss class when you die you know.

OP posts:
Jaybird37 · 15/01/2011 14:53

I agree that he ought to have been given a custodial sentence. What he did was outrageous and incredibly dangerous.

However, he was previously of good character and he surrendered himself to the police. In terms of preventing him from doing it ever again I am sure the sentence is much longer than is necessary. I doubt he would pose a future risk to the public if he had been sentenced for a much shorter period.

If the sentence appears disproportionate to large sections of the community, then it will not act as a proper deterrent.

LookToWindward · 15/01/2011 12:54

And Bullard was lucky to be charged with violent disorder and not attempted murder.

From a sentencing point of view he got off lightly.

LookToWindward · 15/01/2011 12:53

"And you know what? That demo DID bring to public attention the huge grievance our students have"

Quite right, and the lasting image of that protest will be a hugely privileged Cambridge undergraduate pissing over all that middle England holds dear.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11985566

Original poster
dotnet · 13/01/2011 22:23

We wouldn't get on, Chil1234 if we met, that much is clear. I know you're not supposed to break into a building - the suffragettes 'shouldn't' have smashed windows etc - but it was a wildly exciting thing for the students, all fired up, to see that it was possible for them to do that, and I can fully understand why some of them seized the opportunity!
I haven't read any interviews with staff they menaced and terrified at Conservative HQ - and why? because it didn't happen.
And you know what? That demo DID bring to public attention the huge grievance our students have, now that our Eton-educated, former Bullingdon Club member prime minister is set on putting our universities on a similar footing to public schools.
If I'd been a student at the front of that demo, would I have rushed into the building? Almost certainly not. But only because I'm too much of a wimp.

OP posts:
Chil1234 · 13/01/2011 15:35

@dotnet.... how do you know this wasn't intentional? Illegally breaking into a building, terrifying office staff and making your way up several storeys to a roof takes considerable more effort and 'trouble', surely?

That's why the law has worked well on this occasion. Some people will put anything down to the woeful defence of 'boys will be boys'... especially well-spoken young men with nice families.... and if you can't see that that is a very weak excuse then I think that's a puty.

StuffingGoldBrass · 13/01/2011 13:57

I think the sentence is excessive, firstly as it is stretching it a bit to say he intended^ to kill anyone, secondly no one was killed.

Given that wife-murderers often get suspended sentences because they were 'provoked' by the women they murdered, sending him to jail for the best part of three years (presuming he has no previous convictions), for a stupid, reckless action committed while in an over-excited 'provoked' state is very harsh.

Original poster
dotnet · 13/01/2011 13:53

Kaloki - because people who throw stuff off motorways have to go to the 'trouble' of making their way to a motorway bridge in the first place. It's pre-planned. Conservative HQ roof wasn't, it was just that the opportunity presented itself.
Also, it's unlikely huge lumps of concrete are just lying around on motorway bridges waiting to be picked up - and, if they're not, people wanting to throw missiles at traffic clearly have to 'tool up' in advance.
Different circumstances altogether.

I'll try and explain again how there IS a difference between a loaded gun and a fire extinguisher. Would you deny there was a difference if Edward Woollare had, instead, thrown an office chair? How about a plant in a pot? A heavy book? One was picked up and thrown opportunistically; the other would have been premeditated use of a lethal weapon.
Pity you can't appreciate that human beings are weak and have failings and make big, BIG stupid (and even dangerous) mistakes sometimes. Particularly, perhaps, eighteen year old boys.

OP posts:
KalokiMallow · 13/01/2011 13:21

So only something which is pre-designed as a weapon can be considered a weapon? Otherwise what is the difference between a bullet and a fire extinguisher thrown off a roof? They can both kill on impact.

As for "he dropped it into a space" that's really easy to say in hindsight isn't it? Seeing as he was lucky enough not to hit anyone. I can't say that I find it at all easy that someone would throw something into a crowd but also be aiming for a space Hmm

Why is someone throwing rocks onto a motorway any different, how do you know they weren't aiming for a SPACE too?

Original poster
dotnet · 13/01/2011 09:12

KalokiMallow - about what you say re Edward Woollard (if he'd fired a gun, instead of dropping a fire extinguisher)..
Do you seriously think the scenarios are the same?
If he'd fired a gun his first offence would be having a gun in the first place, probably.
Guns are designed to kill and wound. Therefore firing a gun at random is upping the risk a hundredfold.
Anyone who fires a gun at random might well be a loony as well as dangerous.
We can't go inside E. Woollard's brain as of the time he did what he did. He claims he dropped it into a SPACE on the ground (and then, if we accept that, we'd have to assume he dropped the thing for the 'shock' effect.)
The punishment which has been meted out to him looks to me as if the assumption was that he meant to KILL.
Doesn't seem to me like a presumption of innocence until proven guilty.
And, re another post - I don't think a working class idiot who threw a rock on to cars passing under a bridge is a similar scenario. In that case the presumption that the intention was to hit the cars, looks like a safer one.
I also doubt that a two year eight month sentence would be handed out in the case of a motorway bridge lout.

OP posts:
KalokiMallow · 12/01/2011 22:30

"I do agree with peopel complaining that more serious criminals are not dealt with as harshly but that says more about the system being too lax on them than being too harsh on Edward Woolard"

Exactly.

GiddyPickle · 12/01/2011 22:23

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

complimentary · 12/01/2011 20:22

Anyone seen the film 'scum?' he will certainly regret throwing the extinquisher!

KalokiMallow · 12/01/2011 14:00

dotnet You are reading different posts to me then.

As I asked earlier, if he'd fired a gun into the crowd would you say the sentence was too long? Because that extinguisher was a weapon the minute he launched it off the roof.

Chil1234 · 12/01/2011 11:19

As I've read elsewhere, if he'd been a working-class 18 year-old from a broken home convicted of 'stupidly' throwing a big lump of concrete off a motorway bridge, few people would disagree with the sentence. Just because he's from a nice family & just because the people he was aiming at were police .... somehow that makes him a victim?

Original poster
dotnet · 12/01/2011 10:07

The consensus seems to be that this sentence was wrong (just looking at the overall picture from the posts).

I am hopeful that this boy WON'T be corrupted by the viciousness he may see inside Feltham. Stephen Fry went to Pucklechurch prison for stealing credit cards (although I think his sentence was a lot shorter)- and he recovered lost ground very quickly.
This was a political sentence and makes me ashamed of the courts system of this country. The judge was clearly of the Judge Jeffries 'hanging judge' type.
So, so, sad about this, as well as angry and ashamed of my country which punishes stupidity by attempting to ruin teenagers' lives.
My heart goes out to Edward's mum and to the many family members and friends who attested to his good character.

OP posts:
MommyMayhem · 12/01/2011 04:15

Would you feel differently if it had hit someone?

KalokiMallow · 12/01/2011 04:06

He threw a heavy object into a crowd of people knowing (hoping) it would be likely to hurt/kill someone.

At the moment he threw that fire extinguisher it became a weapon. So say someone fired a gun into a crowd and by sheer luck it missed, would you be saying the sentence was too harsh?

imright · 11/01/2011 21:40

I think that the sentence is too harsh. This young guy has never been in trouble with the police before. He will be in a young offenders jail for nearly three years. These places can be rough, very rough. I should know as I have visited them on more than one occasion. This kid will learn more about how to be a criminal in there, than he could ever learn on the outside.

He should however have received a custodial sentence, perhaps three months, because I can assure anyone three months is long enough in a young offenders institution.

This young idiot could have killed someone with his stupid act, but would anyone here want there son to go to an institution/prison for so long. I do however believe this sends out a clear message, don't carry out this sort of crime if you are not thinking of doing a 'long time'.

Kbear · 11/01/2011 20:42

They are making an example of him. There is no level playing field when it comes to sentencing in our justice system. I personally think the punishment fits the crime. Shame more punishments don't. He could have killed someone, it was amazing he didn't. He prob would have got the same sentence though...

huddspur · 11/01/2011 20:38

It was potentially very dangerous but it seems such a waste.

longfingernails · 11/01/2011 20:36

Attempted murder should carry a hefty sentence.