Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

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:
Chil1234 · 11/01/2011 16:39

I think anyone that behaves criminally should be prosecuted, fairly tried and, if found guilty, the sentence be commensurate with the recommendations. The man with the fire-extinguisher was not stupid, he was a thug intent on causing serious harm. The crowd were lucky not to be killed or injured because of his deliberately violent behaviour. He was very lucky not to get 5 years.

LadyBlaBlah · 11/01/2011 16:53

It's funny, I know someone who kicked the shit out of his wife to the point of unconsciousness and life support and he got a suspended sentence.

And who said policing is a politics free zone? Confused

Chil1234 · 11/01/2011 19:15

Justice isn't a politics-free zone. It responds to public opinion, sets examples and reflects judges opinions. The fraudulent MP last week got 18 months and there's probably another one going to join him soon. A regular Joe guilty of the same thing would proably get a community order. Extinguisher man was part of a anti-government mob that broke into a building, terrifying innocent office staff and endangering lives... and if he's 'made an example of' within the scope of the possible sentences available I'm really not all that surprised or all that unhappy. No idea why a violent attacker would be given a suspended sentence.

TotorosOcarina · 11/01/2011 19:18

I think its ridiculous TBH.

I've known serious , violent crimes to ebe commited only to be handed community service sentances, or suspended sentances. These are people who have violent beaten people - completely intentionally knowing they are hurting them.

this stupid, stupid kid did something wrong, very wrong.

but to go to jail for nearly 3 years??

no.
there are much more dangerous people out there who really DO pose a threat to the general public who I feel should be in that cell instead of him.

MoonUnitAlpha · 11/01/2011 19:22

I think it's ridiculous - he'd have got less for actually hurting someone in a pub brawl or mugging!

LadyBlaBlah · 11/01/2011 19:43

Yes, I think the sentence is way over the top.

And this from a government who want to reduce prison numbers, especially for lower order crimes Confused

longfingernails · 11/01/2011 20:36

Attempted murder should carry a hefty sentence.

huddspur · 11/01/2011 20:38

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

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...

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'.

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?

MommyMayhem · 12/01/2011 04:15

Would you feel differently if it had hit someone?

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:
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?

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.

complimentary · 12/01/2011 20:22

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

GiddyPickle · 12/01/2011 22:23

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

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.

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 · 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 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:
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.

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.

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:
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