1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Hi Guest, welcome to the TES Community!

    Connect with like-minded professionals and have your say on the issues that matter to you.

    Don't forget to look at the how to guide.

    Dismiss Notice

Crazy Crimes & Convictions

Discussion in 'Personal' started by Vince_Ulam, Apr 20, 2018.

  1. Vince_Ulam

    Vince_Ulam Star commenter

    While this barber acted like a dick and his client & his parents rightfully felt angry, eight months jail for actual bodily harm is overkill, a fine would have sufficed:

    Barber who gave boy humiliating haircut is sent to jail
    Telegraph.co.uk, 19th April 2018.

    I believe in the rule of law and that it is generally good but instances of its obviously draconian application here and its unfair favour elsewhere makes me wonder if the police, the CPS & the courts are sufficiently bound in their powers and in what they are allowed to believe is their purpose.

    [​IMG]
     
    Jamvic and nomad like this.
  2. cellerdore

    cellerdore Occasional commenter

    When only 4 people have been convicted for the Rotherham crimes so far, this makes this case seem even more preposterous.
     
    bevdex, Bonnie23, Jamvic and 4 others like this.
  3. FrankWolley

    FrankWolley Star commenter

    Was this published on April 1st?:eek:
     
    nomad and Vince_Ulam like this.
  4. Stiltskin

    Stiltskin Lead commenter

    The police and CPS were right in charging him, I think. He was an adult who took exception to a ten year old's vanity and decided to teach him a lesson. "I wanted to show him razors are dangerous" excuse is pretty poor, and shaving his hair off and insisting he sweep it up was bullying behaviour.

    The boy told the police he'd been assaulted and the police gathered up evidence to see if he had broken the law . The CPS decided their was enough evidence to say their was an assault, and the barber admitted as much. I can't see anything their to suggest that either the police or CPS overstepped their powers there. Someone said the law was broken. The police investigated. The CPS looked at the evidence and decided that they had enough proof that the law was broken.

    As for the sentencing, it seems to be a category 2 offence but I can't see why it wasn't a suspended sentence. I can only presume that there were things that came up in the trial that haven't been reported on in order for it to end up at 8 months. If not I would expect to see the barber lodging an appeal against the sentence.

    (For the relationship to the the Rotherham case, it is worth noting that there are 6 more trials lined up this year with 34 more individuals being investigated. Unlike the barber case, there's obviously a lot more evidence to collect (I believe only about a quarter of the victims evidence has been collected so far) and I doubt any of those being investigated is pleading guilty. Perhaps if the government invested more in a public services, and in particular front line staff we may have more police to be able to speed up the investigations.)
     
  5. lanokia

    lanokia Star commenter

    Giving a child an unflattering haircut - 8 months in prison

    Engage in Male Genital Mutilation - nothing.

    Yep, our priorities are fine.
     
    bevdex, Jamvic, oldsomeman and 4 others like this.
  6. Vince_Ulam

    Vince_Ulam Star commenter

    As I said, dickish, but do you honestly think he deserved a custodial sentence?

    No shade to be cast here. Didn't you read the article? Mr. Omar is of previous good character and has no convictions. What do you suppose it was, then, that unduly influenced the authorities in this? Perhaps Mr. Omar was literally cast in the wrong shade as far as the police, the CPS and the judge was concerned.
     
  7. harsh-but-fair

    harsh-but-fair Lead commenter

    When not a single banker has been prosecuted for the 2008 financial meltdown or the PPI scandal even Rotherham seems to have been handled well.
     
  8. Stiltskin

    Stiltskin Lead commenter

    I believe there is nothing to stop someone in this country suing their parents or doctor for such a procedure carried out on religious grounds.

    It is a tricky area though, whilst I may not agree with it on religious grounds I can understand why it is important to some groups. It would be much better then to allow the person themselves to make that choice. The question is do we have a government who'd be willing to stand up to religious groups and say you can't enforce religious beliefs on a child that may cause them unnecessary harm.

    I will note that male circumcision can't be compared to FGM though, which has no medical benefits.
     
  9. Doitforfree

    Doitforfree Star commenter

    I wonder how many times he'd politely asked the child to stop fiddling with the razor before he cut off the hair. It's the usual bleeding heart nonsense that is turning children into monsters who know their rights but have no self control.

    Who we choose to prosecute is a bizarre and random system and needs a thorough overhaul.

    I'm glad the Rotherham scandal is finally being dealt with, but the fact that it took so long for anyone even to notice or care is truly sickening.
     
    Vince_Ulam and Jamvic like this.
  10. Doitforfree

    Doitforfree Star commenter

    Circumcision doesn't have any proven medical benefits. Those in favour hugely exagerate any benefits, and ignore the fact that proper hygiene affords the same benefits. It has risks such as complications and loss of sensation. And it isn't done for health grounds, it's done for same ancient superstition about tribal belonging. The fact that it wouldn't be legal to chop any other bits off a baby for no better reason than you thought it made them a member of your group says it all really.
     
    Jamvic likes this.
  11. lanokia

    lanokia Star commenter

    Nothing to stop them except it's legal for it to happen and suing costs money.

    We've had it that religious excuses are insufficient on icing a gay marriage cake... so why is it tolerated for something far worse?

    And why do people always try to minimise MGM and play up FGM. They are both abhorrent.

    If an 18+ adult wants MGM that's fine, it's your body, do what you want. If they is a medical reason [I know an man who had a medical reason] then fine. But doing it because a 2000 year old religious text demands it... nah that's not a good reason.

    People get all upset about docking dogs tails... but cutting bits of babies is a moral grey area.
     
    bombaysapphire, Jamvic and Stiltskin like this.
  12. Doitforfree

    Doitforfree Star commenter

    I couldn't agree more. My husband had to have a circumcision as an adult due to a medical condition and, to be blunt, although it's fine, I liked it better the way it was!
     
  13. nomad

    nomad Star commenter

    In eight months the kid will have grown another ridiculous hair style.
     
  14. Vince_Ulam

    Vince_Ulam Star commenter

    At which point his headteacher will be banged up for sending a letter home to his parents.
     
  15. Stiltskin

    Stiltskin Lead commenter

    I don't think it qualifies as dickish behaviour. The law is clear. He broke it, and admitted as such. To say the police broke Wheatons law would be saying that his behaviour shouldn't have been investigated as it was inconsequential, just mucking around... Is it dickish behaviour to fine someone doing 32mph in a 30mph zone? The only thing I can see was dickish is the behaviour of Mr Omar.

    Did he deserve a custodial sentence, probably not as I said in my last post but...

    I don't have the full information, and I presume neither do you. The report is secondary information. The judge has to follow sentencing guidelines, the newspaper report highlights that it was premeditated (so a cat 2) so sentencing should start at 26 weeks. However the report also highlights things that suggest this should be reduced rather than increased.

    This gives me two possible thoughts - the judge ignored the sentencing guidelines and let their own emotions/prejudices take over or their were other factors in the evidence that meant it warranted a higher sentence, for example the offence was committed against a child, the ongoing effect upon the victim, the presence of others (presuming some of which were children), the gratuitous degradation of victim.

    Unless you have evidence to suggest otherwise, I am prone to think that it was the later, and the judgment was based on the evidence presented by both sides in court. If you think though that the police are not impartial in their investigations, then I am sorry you think that. Every police person I have met has had high ethical standards, and whilst there may be a few who don't, I would like to think that the majority do.
     
  16. Stiltskin

    Stiltskin Lead commenter

    It is an effective procedure to deal with issues like: balanitis, phimosis and paraphimosis, balanitis xerotica obliterans and repeated UTIs. (from the NHS website).

    Just so as I am clear. I am for circumcision for medical reasons like those listed above. I don't agree with it for religious reasons, but I can empathise why they want it done.
     
  17. Stiltskin

    Stiltskin Lead commenter

    I think it's because it's predominantly an ethical debate that directly (rather than gay marriage which indirectly) opposes their religious "freedoms". It would open up a lot of issues, similar to discussing banning religious dress (like burqas) on children. It would be good though if we had a strong leadership who'd be willing to engage in the debate.

    I agree with this.
     
  18. CheeseMongler

    CheeseMongler Senior commenter

    Eh?! Cutting hair is ABH? I understand the psychological impact this may have had on the child, but removing dead tissue is not causing an injury. I can understand how it could be classed as assault but ABH? The prosecutor is even quoted to say "He suffered psychological and physical harm." It just doesn't add up to me.
     
    Jamvic, Vince_Ulam and nomad like this.
  19. Doitforfree

    Doitforfree Star commenter

    I should have said that circumcision of babies without medical reasons hah no health benefits. Obviously it sometimes has to be done for a medical reason but that is not the case with healthy babies.
     
  20. Stiltskin

    Stiltskin Lead commenter

    It is based on a previous case which determined this precedent:
    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1508091/Its-a-crime-to-cut-off-a-womans-hair.html
     

Share This Page