To be disgusted by the behaviour of this multi-millionaire son and boycott his products?

[GiraffesCanDance1]

I just read of the poor little girl who has died several years after being brain damaged after her parents car was hit by Antonio Singh Boporan who was driving 70mph in a 30mph zone and on the wrong side of the road

Since then it seems he's also been jailed for involvement in blinding someone in a bar brawl

www.mirror.co.uk/incoming/playboy-son-millionaire-who-left-5114017

Apparently he's heir to hundreds of millions of pounds from his parents company 2 Sisters. I'm going to boycott their products (Goodfellas pizza, Foxes biscuits) because although I know lots of companies may have bad associations, I find his behaviour really vile and don't want to line his pockets/inheritance.

The people who work for them will surely only duffer if the family continue to support their shit of a son. Get him off the board and disinherit him and that's it, job done.

Whilst he is a vile person, he does not sit on the board of the company, and I imagine he has always caused a huge amount of trouble to his parents.

To boycott the company will be awfully difficult as they produce so much own label stuff, pizzas for M and S, aldi, Tesco etc, vast amounts of chicken, both whole and portions, sandwiches, ready meals etc. Many of their plants are in deprived parts of the country, so any effect would be felt far more by a redundant employee than a family worth £800 million.

TBH what as a parent can you do with such an appalling son? No doubt having access to lots of money hasn't helped, but I guess he was always going to be a wrong-un.

Hopefully he will do some more jail time as a consequence of her death.
His parents are partly to blame, in my opinion. Who the fuck buys a young driver a Land Rover Sport? He should have been given a much less powerful vehicle to drive.

Entertainment I do judge his parents - they have appointed him and employed him in their companies. He's a director, they can't be that ashamed. The family had a six year legal battle for compensation too

Like I said, they are or have most likely been, trying to rehabilitate him in some way so that he goes on to try and atone for his crimes, or at least to be a better person and more useful member of society. His family seem like decent people to me from what I've read of them. I don't think the son's directorship is anything more than some sort of share related and courtesy title. Not sure wherelse he'd gain employment (when not in prison)

Seeing as the family already have a vast personal fortune, I don't think boycotting their products will achieve anything much and certainly not anything positive, but if you wish to do that then you need to boycott anything connected with Boparan Holdings, not just Two Sisters Group.

Don't get me wrong, my sympathies are firmly with little Cerys and her family, but I think judgement should be held against Antonio and he should be made to face trial for the death resulting from his actions.

Again from what I've read and heard the company is a good employer, frequently in areas where the community really need their presence and I may be wrong, but I think the long wait for compensation for Cerys was because of the insurance companies. If the family had stepped in or been seen to step in they'd have been accused of thinking money could 'buy off' the crime. They may have helped anonymously for all we know, but kept it discreet and very quiet. They may not have done because of legal advice.

OK, maybe 'vigilantism' is the wrong word.

How about 'moral exhibitionism'? This kind of ill-thought-out boycott is everything to do with people wanting to make a public statement about their moral stance and nothing whatsoever to do with campaigning for effective action.

The only likely effect it would have would be to cause job losses in areas of already low employment. If you think that's a fair price to pay for a momentary sense of righteousness then carry on.

I agree with Manatee too. And there is no basis for judging his parents really. His parents could be desperately upset and ashamed.

They won't really feel a boycott, with all their money, and I'm certainly not going to start punishing the employees for what the boss' son did.

'moral exhibitionism' is an even worse phrase, imo.

the 'punishment' should of course be applied to the offender.
not his parents.
not the companies they own, because that may affect their employees.

But, given that I for one am sick of seeing rich and high profile offenders being 'let off lightly' again and again and again, if I as a consumer decide not to put my money in that family's coffers then that is my choice.

Personally, I think the right thing would be for him to be re-tried for Manslaughter and for him to be de-barred from holding Directorship in any Co due to his lack of moral character.

6 months for brain damage and paralysis to a little girl - that's a long way from justice!

Agree that further punishment should come via retrial of the individual than a boycot of his parents' company's products though.

He's a scumbag but he's served his time for the crime so maybe instead people would think about lobbying for better/harsher sentencing

I read about this yesterday and found it very upsetting. That poor little girl and her family. No way is six months acceptable for the suffering of her and her family. He took that child's life. He definitely needs to be retried for manslaughter the vile piece of filth.

I did a quick Google and it looks like the sentencing guidelines changed as a result of the light sentence he got after the RTA, 'Cerys's Law' - which is a small positive.

Entertainment They may have helped anonymously for all we know, but kept it discreet and very quiet. They may not have done because of legal advice.

I think its patently obvious from the girls' parents' comments that they did not. They have also made it clear that she or they received nothing from the trust the Boporans set up.

Are you their pr agent or something? You appear to be trying to sanctify them. It has to be said the way that they have brought up their son and bestowing even courtesy director titles upon him has been spectacularly unsuccessful. Maybe if they had disinherited him, kicked him out and expected him to earn his own living, like most people in life have to, they might not have produced such awful results. You can argue that prison makes life difficult and a person unemployable for any prisoner. I fail to see why the Boporan's son should be any different. For the more serious crimes, prison needs to act as a deterrent, not primarily as a rehabilitator.

As I understand it he received a 21 month sentence, of which he served 6 months and the charge was dangerous driving. He caused the crash when doing 72mph in a 30mph zone and he was overtaking another vehicle.
He crashed head on into the Edwards' vehicle.

All of that is shocking and I don't know why a more serious charge couldn't be brought against him. Presumably there must be a legal reason that isn't supported by public opinion.

From the Birmingham Mail website
Antonio Boparan, the son of multi-millionaire Ranjit Boparan, has expressed “sorrow and regret” for causing the crash that permanently paralysed Cerys Edwards who died on Saturday .

Speaking on behalf on Boparan his spokesman said: “Antonio remains deeply remorseful of his actions as a teenager nine years ago and their tragic consequences.

“No words can appropriately convey the extent of his sorrow and regret at hearing this terrible news today.

“He sends his heartfelt condolences to Cerys’ family at this extremely difficult time.”

The spokesman added: “He has tried to put things right in any way he can and has raised huge amounts of money for children with life-threatening conditions.”

On the same website there's a report of his later offence, for which he received a one year sentence.

HERE

Theres also no grounds for disqualifying him from acting as a director of a company under the 1996 Act, as all the relevant offences relate to mismanagement of companies.

I'd like to see that statute revised to disqualify directors convicted of certain listed offences. I'm really uncomfortable living in a country where odious criminal like Boparan get to call themselves company directors when they go around collating victims like this.

They were on a documentary a few years ago (as was he) maybe a Motorway Cops special (trying to remember but my memory is pants)

I cried all the way through it and he was contrite yet had an air of smugness about him which made my blood boil.

I do recall that he had paid something directly to the family, to help toward the adapted house maybe? That was separate from the insurance pay out. I also recall it was his parents who pushed him to do that.

I need to Google to see what comes up.

Entertainment I'm unsure why you've gone to the trouble to copy out the trite spokesperson led responses of Boparan, when anyone who has read about this crime could have read them for themselves.

I actually find it quite nauseating that, not only is he unable to speak for himself, but shows a desire to minimise his responsibility by making reference to him being a teenager, as if it were some sort of normal teenage high jinks that went wrong. The reference to "putting things right" and "raising huge amounts of money" is equally distasteful.

Its actually fairly meaningless whether he is "sorry" or "regretful" or not. Most people would be, as its easier to rampage through life without causing consequences.

Sorry, they were offered £100,000 with £100,000 to go into a trust fund - back in 2008.

That must have been discussed in the program I saw and I got my wires crossed.

BBC link

Scremersford
No.

I am not a PR agent for anyone.
I don't know the family, either family, involved in this case and I am not trying to sanctify anyone.

When I said, we just don't know and that they may have donated in some way, anonymously, then that is exactly what I meant. If they'd donated from their foundation then it wouldn't have been anonymous would it?
I also said they may have done no such thing and that could be based on legal advice and the prospect of being seen to pay blood money. It's just a concept of can you make amends?

What I do know, is that with the best will in the world, sometimes parents who've done a good job raising other children, or only having one, have done what most of us would consider to be the right things, end up with a grown child who is not a good member of society.

Again for clarity, I'm not referring to myself or my family with that comment, so I have no particular drum to bang.

I also didn't talk about prison and rehabilitation. I said maybe they were trying to rehabilitate him involving him in a charity foundation.

You may be right and kicking him out and disowning him may have made him turn his life around and change his ways.
What we don't know is how much worse he may have been in that scenario.

I just didn't agree that the parents should be penalised for a grown child's behaviour.

Just rereading the news reports. That poor, poor family.

Rest in peace beautiful girl

*En They may have helped anonymously for all we know, but kept it discreet and very quiet. They may not have done because of legal advice.

Since his family have made a very big point of setting up a trust fund to make amends, I don't see why not.

The whole thing smacks far too much of blood money and trying to manipulate pr to me.

I actually find it quite nauseating that, not only is he
unable to speak for himself, but shows a desire to
minimise his responsibility by making reference to him
being a teenager, as if it were some sort of normal
teenage high jinks that went wrong. The reference to
"putting things right" and "raising huge amounts of
money" is equally distasteful.

^this!!! Exactly as he came across in the interview he made as part of the documentary.

Scremersford

As it happens we have been having a discussion here about this case, following Cerys's death and also about Oscar Pistorious's release to house arrest after serving such a short part of his sentence.

We were also discussing the regulations under which people can be prevented from holding company directorships.

The cut and paste of 'his words' shows their emphasis on the fact that his crime was 9 years ago when he was 'a teenager' but the extra link shows he's not a reformed character.
I was actually looking to see if he's currently in jail after his March 2015 sentence.

My responses to this thread have been primarily as a result of the premise of boycotting his parents' company products.

BCR thanks for that link, I hadn't seen it.

Found it:

Police, Camera, Action. 2010.

Part 1

Part 2

Knowing that he is involved in that company, I don't think I can now continue to purchase their products. I don't consider it a boycott, but more choosing to spend my money elsewhere .

Maybe his parents need to take a long, hard look at having him on the payroll?

Well, I agree with Entertainment.

Not sure how his counsel could describe AB as living 'cautiously' when he kept such bad company and was involved in that horrible brawl, coming back to shout at a man who was covered in blood. His mugshot makes him look incredibly unsavoury, even by the low standards of police mugshots.

But just put the blame with him, where it belongs, rather than speculate on what his parents did or didn't do. I feel that lumping them in with him when there is no specific neglect or misconduct to blame them for just seems to minimise his degree of fault (total) for his crimes.