Man jailed over cowardly attack on girlfriend

Swindon Advertiser: James Webdell pushed his girlfriend so hard she fell and fractured her skull James Webdell pushed his girlfriend so hard she fell and fractured her skull

A MAN out celebrating his birthday left his girlfriend with a fractured skull when he pushed her over in a cowardly attack outside a pub.

Drunk James Webdell flew into a rage because she didn’t want him to go home with her, shoving her with such force she tumbled over, smashing her head on the kerb.

And as his stricken partner lay seriously injured, the unsympathetic 24-year-old tried to pull her to her feet telling her to ‘stop acting like a spastic’.

Tessa Hingston, prosecuting, told Swindon Crown Court he had been in a relationship with Charlene Edwards for about four years, though they didn’t live together.

During that time she said the police had been called to arguments between them four times and he had been arrested on three of those occasions.

On June 25 this year she said the couple had gone out drinking with a mutual friend to celebrate Webdell’s birthday.

But when they went to get a taxi outside the Steam Railway, in Old Town, at the end of the night they started to argue as Miss Edwards said she was going home alone.

Webdell was shouting and swearing at her and then shoved her, with what the cabbie called a ‘ferocious push’, and she fell on her back hitting her head.

Miss Edwards was taken to hospital where she was found to have a fracture to the back of her skull, which has healed.

The court was told that the victim was standing by the defendant and had withdrawn her support for the prosecution.

However the Crown proceeded with the case, relying on the evidence of the independent witnesses.

Webdell, of Torun Way, Haydon End, pleaded guilty to grievous bodily harm.

Martin Wiggins, defending, said his client was strongly motivated to change his ways and was sorry for what he had done.

While in custody on remand the couple had corresponded and were due to start a relationship counselling course.

Mr Wiggins said: “He is committed to his partner and she to him. He acknowledges she should not at any time be put at any risk because of his inability to manage his alcohol misuse, which is clearly what it had become.”

Jailing him for 18 months, Judge Tim Mousley QC said: “I am satisfied on this occasion you were told you were not going home with your partner and that was all it took to set you off, and what you did afterwards was cowardly.

“The outcome was serious. Criminal courts hear cases on a regular basis of people who die after being pushed over and hitting their heads on the ground.

“An independent witness was shocked at the force of the push and after you pushed her to the ground in that way you were abusive towards her.”

Comments (27)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

7:27am Thu 12 Dec 13

Ringer says...


Martin Wiggins, defending, said his client was strongly motivated to change his ways and was sorry for what he had done.


Meaningless, completely unverifiable bullsh*t.


During that time she said the police had been called to arguments between them four times and he had been arrested on three of those occasions.


And now he's been done a fourth time (at least). Yes, Mr Wiggins, there does seem to be an overwhelming motivation to change his ways, doesn't there?
[quote] Martin Wiggins, defending, said his client was strongly motivated to change his ways and was sorry for what he had done. [/quote] Meaningless, completely unverifiable bullsh*t. [quote] During that time she said the police had been called to arguments between them four times and he had been arrested on three of those occasions. [/quote] And now he's been done a fourth time (at least). Yes, Mr Wiggins, there does seem to be an overwhelming motivation to change his ways, doesn't there? Ringer

8:20am Thu 12 Dec 13

house on the hill says...

Complete scum, should be locked up and the key thrown away. A complete waste of oxygen and natural resources and an insult to every law abiding person.
Complete scum, should be locked up and the key thrown away. A complete waste of oxygen and natural resources and an insult to every law abiding person. house on the hill

9:43am Thu 12 Dec 13

Tonyblairisthedevil says...

Unfortuately, that woman withdrew her support for this, luckily he could be prosecuted without it..
I fear she will go back to that piece of scum as soon as he is out and he wont change his ways. I wish i could understand why anyone would want to be with him but it sadly happens all the time.. She needs help to get him out of her life.
Unfortuately, that woman withdrew her support for this, luckily he could be prosecuted without it.. I fear she will go back to that piece of scum as soon as he is out and he wont change his ways. I wish i could understand why anyone would want to be with him but it sadly happens all the time.. She needs help to get him out of her life. Tonyblairisthedevil

9:55am Thu 12 Dec 13

Ringer says...

He'll be out in just 9 months to do it ALL over again.
He'll be out in just 9 months to do it ALL over again. Ringer

10:02am Thu 12 Dec 13

Hmmmf says...


During that time she said the police had been called to arguments between them four times and he had been arrested on three of those occasions.

The court was told that the victim was standing by the defendant and had withdrawn her support for the prosecution.

Same old, same old. If he'd killed her on this occasion, the police and the courts would likely have copped blame for 'not doing anything' earlier. Good to see the CPS taking independent action for a change; if he kills her next time they at least can't be accused of doing nothing.
[quote][p][bold][/bold] During that time she said the police had been called to arguments between them four times and he had been arrested on three of those occasions. The court was told that the victim was standing by the defendant and had withdrawn her support for the prosecution. [/quote] Same old, same old. If he'd killed her on this occasion, the police and the courts would likely have copped blame for 'not doing anything' earlier. Good to see the CPS taking independent action for a change; if he kills her next time they at least can't be accused of doing nothing. Hmmmf

10:17am Thu 12 Dec 13

AndySN3 says...

What a vile piece of sh1t this so called "man" is. It was pure luck that his victim wasn't killed!!

Lets hope that in the time he is away, she can find true happiness and build a life away from this scum.
What a vile piece of sh1t this so called "man" is. It was pure luck that his victim wasn't killed!! Lets hope that in the time he is away, she can find true happiness and build a life away from this scum. AndySN3

10:22am Thu 12 Dec 13

Ringer says...

Hmmmf wrote:

During that time she said the police had been called to arguments between them four times and he had been arrested on three of those occasions.

The court was told that the victim was standing by the defendant and had withdrawn her support for the prosecution.

Same old, same old. If he'd killed her on this occasion, the police and the courts would likely have copped blame for 'not doing anything' earlier. Good to see the CPS taking independent action for a change; if he kills her next time they at least can't be accused of doing nothing.
What I can never really understand in these cases is why the male members of the victim's family don't make it 'clear' to the criminal concerned that they're no longer expected to be part of Sunday lunch.
[quote][p][bold]Hmmmf[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold][/bold] During that time she said the police had been called to arguments between them four times and he had been arrested on three of those occasions. The court was told that the victim was standing by the defendant and had withdrawn her support for the prosecution. [/quote] Same old, same old. If he'd killed her on this occasion, the police and the courts would likely have copped blame for 'not doing anything' earlier. Good to see the CPS taking independent action for a change; if he kills her next time they at least can't be accused of doing nothing.[/p][/quote]What I can never really understand in these cases is why the male members of the victim's family don't make it 'clear' to the criminal concerned that they're no longer expected to be part of Sunday lunch. Ringer

11:01am Thu 12 Dec 13

Tonyblairisthedevil says...

Ringer wrote:
Hmmmf wrote:

During that time she said the police had been called to arguments between them four times and he had been arrested on three of those occasions.

The court was told that the victim was standing by the defendant and had withdrawn her support for the prosecution.

Same old, same old. If he'd killed her on this occasion, the police and the courts would likely have copped blame for 'not doing anything' earlier. Good to see the CPS taking independent action for a change; if he kills her next time they at least can't be accused of doing nothing.
What I can never really understand in these cases is why the male members of the victim's family don't make it 'clear' to the criminal concerned that they're no longer expected to be part of Sunday lunch.
Because the apple never falls far from the tree....
[quote][p][bold]Ringer[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hmmmf[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold][/bold] During that time she said the police had been called to arguments between them four times and he had been arrested on three of those occasions. The court was told that the victim was standing by the defendant and had withdrawn her support for the prosecution. [/quote] Same old, same old. If he'd killed her on this occasion, the police and the courts would likely have copped blame for 'not doing anything' earlier. Good to see the CPS taking independent action for a change; if he kills her next time they at least can't be accused of doing nothing.[/p][/quote]What I can never really understand in these cases is why the male members of the victim's family don't make it 'clear' to the criminal concerned that they're no longer expected to be part of Sunday lunch.[/p][/quote]Because the apple never falls far from the tree.... Tonyblairisthedevil

11:04am Thu 12 Dec 13

Hmmmf says...

Ringer wrote:
What I can never really understand in these cases is why the male members of the victim's family don't make it 'clear' to the criminal concerned that they're no longer expected to be part of Sunday lunch.

I'm generalising of course, and certainly not referring to this specific case, but...These days there simply might not be any male members of the 'family'; could just be the victim and her single-parent mother, a string of 'uncles' long since departed the scene, and maybe a bloke who can only stay a certain number of nights a week to avoid 'cohabitation' complications with the DWP. Cynical I know, but the times are what they are. 'Broken Britain', and all that.
[quote][p][bold]Ringer[/bold] wrote: What I can never really understand in these cases is why the male members of the victim's family don't make it 'clear' to the criminal concerned that they're no longer expected to be part of Sunday lunch.[/quote] I'm generalising of course, and certainly not referring to this specific case, but...These days there simply might not be any male members of the 'family'; could just be the victim and her single-parent mother, a string of 'uncles' long since departed the scene, and maybe a bloke who can only stay a certain number of nights a week to avoid 'cohabitation' complications with the DWP. Cynical I know, but the times are what they are. 'Broken Britain', and all that. Hmmmf

11:07am Thu 12 Dec 13

Ringer says...

Hmmmf wrote:
Ringer wrote:
What I can never really understand in these cases is why the male members of the victim's family don't make it 'clear' to the criminal concerned that they're no longer expected to be part of Sunday lunch.

I'm generalising of course, and certainly not referring to this specific case, but...These days there simply might not be any male members of the 'family'; could just be the victim and her single-parent mother, a string of 'uncles' long since departed the scene, and maybe a bloke who can only stay a certain number of nights a week to avoid 'cohabitation' complications with the DWP. Cynical I know, but the times are what they are. 'Broken Britain', and all that.
Fair point.
[quote][p][bold]Hmmmf[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ringer[/bold] wrote: What I can never really understand in these cases is why the male members of the victim's family don't make it 'clear' to the criminal concerned that they're no longer expected to be part of Sunday lunch.[/quote] I'm generalising of course, and certainly not referring to this specific case, but...These days there simply might not be any male members of the 'family'; could just be the victim and her single-parent mother, a string of 'uncles' long since departed the scene, and maybe a bloke who can only stay a certain number of nights a week to avoid 'cohabitation' complications with the DWP. Cynical I know, but the times are what they are. 'Broken Britain', and all that.[/p][/quote]Fair point. Ringer

12:22pm Thu 12 Dec 13

house on the hill says...

Hmmmf wrote:
Ringer wrote:
What I can never really understand in these cases is why the male members of the victim's family don't make it 'clear' to the criminal concerned that they're no longer expected to be part of Sunday lunch.

I'm generalising of course, and certainly not referring to this specific case, but...These days there simply might not be any male members of the 'family'; could just be the victim and her single-parent mother, a string of 'uncles' long since departed the scene, and maybe a bloke who can only stay a certain number of nights a week to avoid 'cohabitation' complications with the DWP. Cynical I know, but the times are what they are. 'Broken Britain', and all that.
having worked in social housing for many years and in debt recovery and counselling, you would be surprised how sadly true that is!
[quote][p][bold]Hmmmf[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ringer[/bold] wrote: What I can never really understand in these cases is why the male members of the victim's family don't make it 'clear' to the criminal concerned that they're no longer expected to be part of Sunday lunch.[/quote] I'm generalising of course, and certainly not referring to this specific case, but...These days there simply might not be any male members of the 'family'; could just be the victim and her single-parent mother, a string of 'uncles' long since departed the scene, and maybe a bloke who can only stay a certain number of nights a week to avoid 'cohabitation' complications with the DWP. Cynical I know, but the times are what they are. 'Broken Britain', and all that.[/p][/quote]having worked in social housing for many years and in debt recovery and counselling, you would be surprised how sadly true that is! house on the hill

12:49pm Thu 12 Dec 13

dukeofM4 says...

At the end of the day, if she wants to stay with him, what on earth can the police and courts do?

Or do we treat her as being weak and stupid and make decisions on her behalf as a society?

Going to jail for less than 9 months (besides he'll probably be out in 6 months with time served in custody), is going to change their relationship. The only bit of sensible news I've heard is she and him are going to relationship counseling.

Perhaps he will stop lashing out and whatever behaviour she has added to the equation will change as well. At present these two are just a toxic mix together and the police / courts are bystanders who really don't solve their problems.

If they can't work it out, they should split and save the taxpayers the revolving courthouse door and its costs. If you add up 4 arrests, his legal fees, police time, jail time, and other involved parties, how much have we all paid out to act as their 'marriage counsellor?". Answer: thousands.

The domestic violence industry gets paid but doesn't solve this couple's issues. Whatever is said she made decisions in this relationship as well including him.
At the end of the day, if she wants to stay with him, what on earth can the police and courts do? Or do we treat her as being weak and stupid and make decisions on her behalf as a society? Going to jail for less than 9 months (besides he'll probably be out in 6 months with time served in custody), is going to change their relationship. The only bit of sensible news I've heard is she and him are going to relationship counseling. Perhaps he will stop lashing out and whatever behaviour she has added to the equation will change as well. At present these two are just a toxic mix together and the police / courts are bystanders who really don't solve their problems. If they can't work it out, they should split and save the taxpayers the revolving courthouse door and its costs. If you add up 4 arrests, his legal fees, police time, jail time, and other involved parties, how much have we all paid out to act as their 'marriage counsellor?". Answer: thousands. The domestic violence industry gets paid but doesn't solve this couple's issues. Whatever is said she made decisions in this relationship as well including him. dukeofM4

1:11pm Thu 12 Dec 13

Ringer says...


Or do we treat her as being weak and stupid and make decisions on her behalf as a society?


When she refuses to have the criminal prosecuted - almost certainly due to him, or his family, having put pressure on her to do so - then yes, absolutely society must ensure that his ilk are prosecuted.

Granted, the resulting sentences are largely pointlessly lenient, but that's a whole different area for debate.

With any luck, the girl concerned will meet a non-violent, non-criminal whilst her attacker is behind bars. Mind you, he'll do the same to whoever he gets together with as soon as he's released.
[quote] Or do we treat her as being weak and stupid and make decisions on her behalf as a society? [/quote] When she refuses to have the criminal prosecuted - almost certainly due to him, or his family, having put pressure on her to do so - then yes, absolutely society must ensure that his ilk are prosecuted. Granted, the resulting sentences are largely pointlessly lenient, but that's a whole different area for debate. With any luck, the girl concerned will meet a non-violent, non-criminal whilst her attacker is behind bars. Mind you, he'll do the same to whoever he gets together with as soon as he's released. Ringer

1:27pm Thu 12 Dec 13

dukeofM4 says...

Or..... if she violent prone she'll meet another bloke and the same things will happen again. Some women are prone to violence for whatever reason.

Just giving her a free pass because the physical threshold was crossed won't stop her future behaviour in future.

Look at that women in Cornwall who had her eyes gorged out, her former partner is in prison for life, however, she was again in the press again with guess what a violent partner.

Is she unlucky or just a miserable cow that inflames the situation constantly? Her name was Tina Nash was memory.

If you read her book she says twice that 'she doesn't take any lip from men.'. Statements like that gives me cause for concern as to what is really going on.

Not to be accused to 'blaming the victim' but perhaps she would end up in trouble even if she married a saint.
Or..... if she violent prone she'll meet another bloke and the same things will happen again. Some women are prone to violence for whatever reason. Just giving her a free pass because the physical threshold was crossed won't stop her future behaviour in future. Look at that women in Cornwall who had her eyes gorged out, her former partner is in prison for life, however, she was again in the press again with guess what a violent partner. Is she unlucky or just a miserable cow that inflames the situation constantly? Her name was Tina Nash was memory. If you read her book she says twice that 'she doesn't take any lip from men.'. Statements like that gives me cause for concern as to what is really going on. Not to be accused to 'blaming the victim' but perhaps she would end up in trouble even if she married a saint. dukeofM4

1:29pm Thu 12 Dec 13

swindonbob says...

It worries me that men like this get drunk and then can become extremely violent in a split second. A custodial sentence is only short term safety for the public and I dare say he will be released and fall back into his old ways until someone else gets seriously injured or worse.
It worries me that men like this get drunk and then can become extremely violent in a split second. A custodial sentence is only short term safety for the public and I dare say he will be released and fall back into his old ways until someone else gets seriously injured or worse. swindonbob

1:42pm Thu 12 Dec 13

house on the hill says...

swindonbob wrote:
It worries me that men like this get drunk and then can become extremely violent in a split second. A custodial sentence is only short term safety for the public and I dare say he will be released and fall back into his old ways until someone else gets seriously injured or worse.
Agree, if he treats the person he so called loves, Imagine how he would treat someone he doesn't like. Violent behaviour should be dealt with severely for everyone's sake not just that of the partner. Alcohol, the ultimate "legal high" and low clearly.
[quote][p][bold]swindonbob[/bold] wrote: It worries me that men like this get drunk and then can become extremely violent in a split second. A custodial sentence is only short term safety for the public and I dare say he will be released and fall back into his old ways until someone else gets seriously injured or worse.[/p][/quote]Agree, if he treats the person he so called loves, Imagine how he would treat someone he doesn't like. Violent behaviour should be dealt with severely for everyone's sake not just that of the partner. Alcohol, the ultimate "legal high" and low clearly. house on the hill

3:19pm Thu 12 Dec 13

Ringer says...

dukeofM4 wrote:
Or..... if she violent prone she'll meet another bloke and the same things will happen again. Some women are prone to violence for whatever reason.

Just giving her a free pass because the physical threshold was crossed won't stop her future behaviour in future.

Look at that women in Cornwall who had her eyes gorged out, her former partner is in prison for life, however, she was again in the press again with guess what a violent partner.

Is she unlucky or just a miserable cow that inflames the situation constantly? Her name was Tina Nash was memory.

If you read her book she says twice that 'she doesn't take any lip from men.'. Statements like that gives me cause for concern as to what is really going on.

Not to be accused to 'blaming the victim' but perhaps she would end up in trouble even if she married a saint.
Your misogyny mystifies me.

Almost all the women who are 'violent prone' are simply not very intelligent individuals with low self-esteem and who are easily manipulated.

Violent and abusive men are often very charming and offer a veneer of being loving and caring initially. Once they've ingratiate themselves, they tend to get irritated and angered when their partners say things like, 'I don't take any lip from men' and their nasty side spills out into controlling, abusive and violent behaviour,.
[quote][p][bold]dukeofM4[/bold] wrote: Or..... if she violent prone she'll meet another bloke and the same things will happen again. Some women are prone to violence for whatever reason. Just giving her a free pass because the physical threshold was crossed won't stop her future behaviour in future. Look at that women in Cornwall who had her eyes gorged out, her former partner is in prison for life, however, she was again in the press again with guess what a violent partner. Is she unlucky or just a miserable cow that inflames the situation constantly? Her name was Tina Nash was memory. If you read her book she says twice that 'she doesn't take any lip from men.'. Statements like that gives me cause for concern as to what is really going on. Not to be accused to 'blaming the victim' but perhaps she would end up in trouble even if she married a saint.[/p][/quote]Your misogyny mystifies me. Almost all the women who are 'violent prone' are simply not very intelligent individuals with low self-esteem and who are easily manipulated. Violent and abusive men are often very charming and offer a veneer of being loving and caring initially. Once they've ingratiate themselves, they tend to get irritated and angered when their partners say things like, 'I don't take any lip from men' and their nasty side spills out into controlling, abusive and violent behaviour,. Ringer

3:42pm Thu 12 Dec 13

dukeofM4 says...

Ringer some women are violent, that's fact. Equally some women can have the face of an angel and turn out to be a nasty piece of work indeed.

I am not a misogynist, but someone who believes that in most cases a women has made choices about being in or out of a relationship which they must take responsibility for. What current policy does is give women absolution and then she goes off to the next bloke and repeats the pattern.

Women can punch, kick, scream, and throw things or worse just like men. Read the papers about the girl Dennehy up in Cambridgeshire. She murdered 3 men what was that all about? The men were just stupid enough getting involved with a black widow.

Cases like this will continue to come up as long as society continues writing women a free pass and demonising men. We've had this experiment running for 40 years and it's not working.

The problems that a couple encounter more than likely BOTH have a hand in the problems.

If the law was the other way around like 150 years ago when men routinely summoned the police and had the WOMEN dragged out of the house, and barred contact with her children - sound familiar? I suspect men would make good use of that service in 2013 like they did in 1853. Check the history books it's true in fact the BBC had a podcast about it.

Humans haven't changed just society remember that.
Ringer some women are violent, that's fact. Equally some women can have the face of an angel and turn out to be a nasty piece of work indeed. I am not a misogynist, but someone who believes that in most cases a women has made choices about being in or out of a relationship which they must take responsibility for. What current policy does is give women absolution and then she goes off to the next bloke and repeats the pattern. Women can punch, kick, scream, and throw things or worse just like men. Read the papers about the girl Dennehy up in Cambridgeshire. She murdered 3 men what was that all about? The men were just stupid enough getting involved with a black widow. Cases like this will continue to come up as long as society continues writing women a free pass and demonising men. We've had this experiment running for 40 years and it's not working. The problems that a couple encounter more than likely BOTH have a hand in the problems. If the law was the other way around like 150 years ago when men routinely summoned the police and had the WOMEN dragged out of the house, and barred contact with her children - sound familiar? I suspect men would make good use of that service in 2013 like they did in 1853. Check the history books it's true in fact the BBC had a podcast about it. Humans haven't changed just society remember that. dukeofM4

4:42pm Thu 12 Dec 13

Ringer says...

@dukeofM4: you clearly have had some very bitter personal experiences with women, because almost all of what you post sails perilously close to just saying, 'Women are worse than men and deserve everything they get, let them fend for themselves'.

Other cases have no bearing on this one. What happened to you has no relation to this case.

What happened here is that a man with multiple arrests has finally lashed out, pushed his girlfriend over while drunk and could quite easily have killed her. Next time he probably will.

If you don't think that's worth 6 months in prison, there's not much else to discuss really.
@dukeofM4: you clearly have had some very bitter personal experiences with women, because almost all of what you post sails perilously close to just saying, 'Women are worse than men and deserve everything they get, let them fend for themselves'. Other cases have no bearing on this one. What happened to you has no relation to this case. What happened here is that a man with multiple arrests has finally lashed out, pushed his girlfriend over while drunk and could quite easily have killed her. Next time he probably will. If you don't think that's worth 6 months in prison, there's not much else to discuss really. Ringer

5:38pm Thu 12 Dec 13

dukeofM4 says...

No personal experiences in fact positives ones, however, I call it like I see it.

Ringer you seem to think prison cures everything. Your hardline law and order attitude makes me wonder if you're a victim of some sort. Never in my posts did I indicate he shouldn't punished, however, arresting him 4 times with your hardliner approach hasn't had much impact either.

Ah... they didn't lock him up long enough or take him out of circulation to prevent further crimes, I forgot.

What these two need is relationship counseling to behave like responsible adults. Fights between couples are different than the bloke who mugs little old ladies or gets into a fight with a stranger they have no history together.

We seem to think a not fit for purpose legal system really is the answer for these two regardless of the punishment. The legal system is may punish but never gets to the root of their problem which could be as much her as him nobody really knows.

He pushed her but most likely without the intention for her to hit her head on the curb made worse by her drunkenness as well. It happened and he must be punished in some fashion.

However these two have been in a tango a long long time and there's history. The Advert reports only what happened to her, but wouldn't report if she had threatened him or just wound him up in general because the domestic violence industry says no. It's like saying CAR A hit CAR B while failing to mention CAR A ran a stop light. When you say CAR A hit CAR B it implies CAR A is at fault. When you add in the stop light the story changes completely. How the press reports this story is no different. The press only reports what happened to her and never mentions any part she may have played such as she was drunk along with him and mouthing off.

But hey she's not grown up enough to be responsible for her actions.

The fact she didn't want to support the CPS is her business.

So what's been accomplished she's got 6 months to decide to take him back, and he gets released and goes back with her having a false sense of security by the fact she didn't support the CPS and has somehow exonerated her in his eyes. They get into another row and here we go fifth time around with the cops, courts etc costing thousands with nothing achieved. At what point do we say the two of them are not worth the trouble?

They should split rather than use taxpayer's money using the cops as referee and the CPS against her wishes. That's what is happening her. Is anyone really safer or better off after this? The answer is NO if they don't find a acceptable solution themselves and stay together. In the heat of a row I doubt he worries about being arrested again since he's 'familiar' with the routine. It's a farce.
No personal experiences in fact positives ones, however, I call it like I see it. Ringer you seem to think prison cures everything. Your hardline law and order attitude makes me wonder if you're a victim of some sort. Never in my posts did I indicate he shouldn't punished, however, arresting him 4 times with your hardliner approach hasn't had much impact either. Ah... they didn't lock him up long enough or take him out of circulation to prevent further crimes, I forgot. What these two need is relationship counseling to behave like responsible adults. Fights between couples are different than the bloke who mugs little old ladies or gets into a fight with a stranger they have no history together. We seem to think a not fit for purpose legal system really is the answer for these two regardless of the punishment. The legal system is may punish but never gets to the root of their problem which could be as much her as him nobody really knows. He pushed her but most likely without the intention for her to hit her head on the curb made worse by her drunkenness as well. It happened and he must be punished in some fashion. However these two have been in a tango a long long time and there's history. The Advert reports only what happened to her, but wouldn't report if she had threatened him or just wound him up in general because the domestic violence industry says no. It's like saying CAR A hit CAR B while failing to mention CAR A ran a stop light. When you say CAR A hit CAR B it implies CAR A is at fault. When you add in the stop light the story changes completely. How the press reports this story is no different. The press only reports what happened to her and never mentions any part she may have played such as she was drunk along with him and mouthing off. But hey she's not grown up enough to be responsible for her actions. The fact she didn't want to support the CPS is her business. So what's been accomplished she's got 6 months to decide to take him back, and he gets released and goes back with her having a false sense of security by the fact she didn't support the CPS and has somehow exonerated her in his eyes. They get into another row and here we go fifth time around with the cops, courts etc costing thousands with nothing achieved. At what point do we say the two of them are not worth the trouble? They should split rather than use taxpayer's money using the cops as referee and the CPS against her wishes. That's what is happening her. Is anyone really safer or better off after this? The answer is NO if they don't find a acceptable solution themselves and stay together. In the heat of a row I doubt he worries about being arrested again since he's 'familiar' with the routine. It's a farce. dukeofM4

6:45pm Thu 12 Dec 13

Ringer says...

He may have been arrested four times, but you can be sure nothing much - if anything - came of it. The very notion that he may have been treated to a 'hardline' approach is absolutely laughable.

Why do you think he almost killed her this latest time (and there will have been plenty of others the police never heard about, let alone the courts)?

He did it because he knows he's got away with it every time previously. Quite frankly, given the dismally lenient sentence this time, he'll still not learn his lesson - why would he? A couple of months twiddling his thumbs and playing Xbox and then back out to blame her for it and to do it again.

You seem convinced that it's all the fault of those nasty women. Plenty of rapists use that defence also.

As for me, no, I'm no victim. I just don't like seeing my money wasted and hopeless judges ensuring that people more vulnerable than I most definitely do become victims of known, repeat criminals.

It's your sister, cousin and niece that I'd like to see protected, you're obviously not that bothered.
He may have been arrested four times, but you can be sure nothing much - if anything - came of it. The very notion that he may have been treated to a 'hardline' approach is absolutely laughable. Why do you think he almost killed her this latest time (and there will have been plenty of others the police never heard about, let alone the courts)? He did it because he knows he's got away with it every time previously. Quite frankly, given the dismally lenient sentence this time, he'll still not learn his lesson - why would he? A couple of months twiddling his thumbs and playing Xbox and then back out to blame her for it and to do it again. You seem convinced that it's all the fault of those nasty women. Plenty of rapists use that defence also. As for me, no, I'm no victim. I just don't like seeing my money wasted and hopeless judges ensuring that people more vulnerable than I most definitely do become victims of known, repeat criminals. It's your sister, cousin and niece that I'd like to see protected, you're obviously not that bothered. Ringer

2:07am Fri 13 Dec 13

dukeofM4 says...

If it was my sister, cousin, etch I'd advise them to 'skip' the system and make their own arrangements to make their life better. It's cheaper, faster, and more effective than the current system of victim-ism that we currently live with.

You openly admit your lack of confidence in the justice system.
If it was my sister, cousin, etch I'd advise them to 'skip' the system and make their own arrangements to make their life better. It's cheaper, faster, and more effective than the current system of victim-ism that we currently live with. You openly admit your lack of confidence in the justice system. dukeofM4

8:07am Fri 13 Dec 13

Ringer says...

dukeofM4 wrote:
If it was my sister, cousin, etch I'd advise them to 'skip' the system and make their own arrangements to make their life better. It's cheaper, faster, and more effective than the current system of victim-ism that we currently live with.

You openly admit your lack of confidence in the justice system.
Nobody with any sense can have any faith or confidence in the justice system in this country, that much is obvious.

I also agree that if a serious crime is committed against a friend or family member then taking action against the criminal yourself is the only sensible option.

BUT, would you not rather the criminal who committed the crime had been in prison - where they belong - rather than have been released early, or not even having received a custodial sentence because the deluded judge thinks they might somehow be 'rehabilitated', in order to commit their latest crime against your family member?

I fail to see why we should continue to be forced to fund a Criminal Justice System which now exists solely for the benefit and nurture of criminals and which has not only zero interest in the victims of crime but which actively creates more (and needless) victims of crime through its refusal to apply its own Sentencing Guidelines correctly.

In fact, it's even worse than that, because the ONLY thing the courts will come down hard on is when people take the law into their own hands. So, not only does the system support criminals but we're also prevented from doing anything about those criminals ourselves. The contract has been broken and the system has failed.
[quote][p][bold]dukeofM4[/bold] wrote: If it was my sister, cousin, etch I'd advise them to 'skip' the system and make their own arrangements to make their life better. It's cheaper, faster, and more effective than the current system of victim-ism that we currently live with. You openly admit your lack of confidence in the justice system.[/p][/quote]Nobody with any sense can have any faith or confidence in the justice system in this country, that much is obvious. I also agree that if a serious crime is committed against a friend or family member then taking action against the criminal yourself is the only sensible option. BUT, would you not rather the criminal who committed the crime had been in prison - where they belong - rather than have been released early, or not even having received a custodial sentence because the deluded judge thinks they might somehow be 'rehabilitated', in order to commit their latest crime against your family member? I fail to see why we should continue to be forced to fund a Criminal Justice System which now exists solely for the benefit and nurture of criminals and which has not only zero interest in the victims of crime but which actively creates more (and needless) victims of crime through its refusal to apply its own Sentencing Guidelines correctly. In fact, it's even worse than that, because the ONLY thing the courts will come down hard on is when people take the law into their own hands. So, not only does the system support criminals but we're also prevented from doing anything about those criminals ourselves. The contract has been broken and the system has failed. Ringer

10:08am Fri 13 Dec 13

Phantom Poster says...

Ringer wrote:
dukeofM4 wrote:
If it was my sister, cousin, etch I'd advise them to 'skip' the system and make their own arrangements to make their life better. It's cheaper, faster, and more effective than the current system of victim-ism that we currently live with.

You openly admit your lack of confidence in the justice system.
Nobody with any sense can have any faith or confidence in the justice system in this country, that much is obvious.

I also agree that if a serious crime is committed against a friend or family member then taking action against the criminal yourself is the only sensible option.

BUT, would you not rather the criminal who committed the crime had been in prison - where they belong - rather than have been released early, or not even having received a custodial sentence because the deluded judge thinks they might somehow be 'rehabilitated', in order to commit their latest crime against your family member?

I fail to see why we should continue to be forced to fund a Criminal Justice System which now exists solely for the benefit and nurture of criminals and which has not only zero interest in the victims of crime but which actively creates more (and needless) victims of crime through its refusal to apply its own Sentencing Guidelines correctly.

In fact, it's even worse than that, because the ONLY thing the courts will come down hard on is when people take the law into their own hands. So, not only does the system support criminals but we're also prevented from doing anything about those criminals ourselves. The contract has been broken and the system has failed.
Sorry. But it's extremely difficult to take seriously someone who takes as canon what he reads in the Adver about a court case. It also mystifies me mhy someone takes such efforts to post the same views over and over and over again here! Who do you think reads these comments such that it will make any sort of difference? Just calm down and get on with your life!
[quote][p][bold]Ringer[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dukeofM4[/bold] wrote: If it was my sister, cousin, etch I'd advise them to 'skip' the system and make their own arrangements to make their life better. It's cheaper, faster, and more effective than the current system of victim-ism that we currently live with. You openly admit your lack of confidence in the justice system.[/p][/quote]Nobody with any sense can have any faith or confidence in the justice system in this country, that much is obvious. I also agree that if a serious crime is committed against a friend or family member then taking action against the criminal yourself is the only sensible option. BUT, would you not rather the criminal who committed the crime had been in prison - where they belong - rather than have been released early, or not even having received a custodial sentence because the deluded judge thinks they might somehow be 'rehabilitated', in order to commit their latest crime against your family member? I fail to see why we should continue to be forced to fund a Criminal Justice System which now exists solely for the benefit and nurture of criminals and which has not only zero interest in the victims of crime but which actively creates more (and needless) victims of crime through its refusal to apply its own Sentencing Guidelines correctly. In fact, it's even worse than that, because the ONLY thing the courts will come down hard on is when people take the law into their own hands. So, not only does the system support criminals but we're also prevented from doing anything about those criminals ourselves. The contract has been broken and the system has failed.[/p][/quote]Sorry. But it's extremely difficult to take seriously someone who takes as canon what he reads in the Adver about a court case. It also mystifies me mhy someone takes such efforts to post the same views over and over and over again here! Who do you think reads these comments such that it will make any sort of difference? Just calm down and get on with your life! Phantom Poster

10:12am Fri 13 Dec 13

Ringer says...

Phantom Poster wrote:
Ringer wrote:
dukeofM4 wrote:
If it was my sister, cousin, etch I'd advise them to 'skip' the system and make their own arrangements to make their life better. It's cheaper, faster, and more effective than the current system of victim-ism that we currently live with.

You openly admit your lack of confidence in the justice system.
Nobody with any sense can have any faith or confidence in the justice system in this country, that much is obvious.

I also agree that if a serious crime is committed against a friend or family member then taking action against the criminal yourself is the only sensible option.

BUT, would you not rather the criminal who committed the crime had been in prison - where they belong - rather than have been released early, or not even having received a custodial sentence because the deluded judge thinks they might somehow be 'rehabilitated', in order to commit their latest crime against your family member?

I fail to see why we should continue to be forced to fund a Criminal Justice System which now exists solely for the benefit and nurture of criminals and which has not only zero interest in the victims of crime but which actively creates more (and needless) victims of crime through its refusal to apply its own Sentencing Guidelines correctly.

In fact, it's even worse than that, because the ONLY thing the courts will come down hard on is when people take the law into their own hands. So, not only does the system support criminals but we're also prevented from doing anything about those criminals ourselves. The contract has been broken and the system has failed.
Sorry. But it's extremely difficult to take seriously someone who takes as canon what he reads in the Adver about a court case. It also mystifies me mhy someone takes such efforts to post the same views over and over and over again here! Who do you think reads these comments such that it will make any sort of difference? Just calm down and get on with your life!
Are you suggesting the Adver has lied, or made up, aspects of the case they've reported?
[quote][p][bold]Phantom Poster[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ringer[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dukeofM4[/bold] wrote: If it was my sister, cousin, etch I'd advise them to 'skip' the system and make their own arrangements to make their life better. It's cheaper, faster, and more effective than the current system of victim-ism that we currently live with. You openly admit your lack of confidence in the justice system.[/p][/quote]Nobody with any sense can have any faith or confidence in the justice system in this country, that much is obvious. I also agree that if a serious crime is committed against a friend or family member then taking action against the criminal yourself is the only sensible option. BUT, would you not rather the criminal who committed the crime had been in prison - where they belong - rather than have been released early, or not even having received a custodial sentence because the deluded judge thinks they might somehow be 'rehabilitated', in order to commit their latest crime against your family member? I fail to see why we should continue to be forced to fund a Criminal Justice System which now exists solely for the benefit and nurture of criminals and which has not only zero interest in the victims of crime but which actively creates more (and needless) victims of crime through its refusal to apply its own Sentencing Guidelines correctly. In fact, it's even worse than that, because the ONLY thing the courts will come down hard on is when people take the law into their own hands. So, not only does the system support criminals but we're also prevented from doing anything about those criminals ourselves. The contract has been broken and the system has failed.[/p][/quote]Sorry. But it's extremely difficult to take seriously someone who takes as canon what he reads in the Adver about a court case. It also mystifies me mhy someone takes such efforts to post the same views over and over and over again here! Who do you think reads these comments such that it will make any sort of difference? Just calm down and get on with your life![/p][/quote]Are you suggesting the Adver has lied, or made up, aspects of the case they've reported? Ringer

10:21am Fri 13 Dec 13

Phantom Poster says...

Ringer wrote:
Phantom Poster wrote:
Ringer wrote:
dukeofM4 wrote:
If it was my sister, cousin, etch I'd advise them to 'skip' the system and make their own arrangements to make their life better. It's cheaper, faster, and more effective than the current system of victim-ism that we currently live with.

You openly admit your lack of confidence in the justice system.
Nobody with any sense can have any faith or confidence in the justice system in this country, that much is obvious.

I also agree that if a serious crime is committed against a friend or family member then taking action against the criminal yourself is the only sensible option.

BUT, would you not rather the criminal who committed the crime had been in prison - where they belong - rather than have been released early, or not even having received a custodial sentence because the deluded judge thinks they might somehow be 'rehabilitated', in order to commit their latest crime against your family member?

I fail to see why we should continue to be forced to fund a Criminal Justice System which now exists solely for the benefit and nurture of criminals and which has not only zero interest in the victims of crime but which actively creates more (and needless) victims of crime through its refusal to apply its own Sentencing Guidelines correctly.

In fact, it's even worse than that, because the ONLY thing the courts will come down hard on is when people take the law into their own hands. So, not only does the system support criminals but we're also prevented from doing anything about those criminals ourselves. The contract has been broken and the system has failed.
Sorry. But it's extremely difficult to take seriously someone who takes as canon what he reads in the Adver about a court case. It also mystifies me mhy someone takes such efforts to post the same views over and over and over again here! Who do you think reads these comments such that it will make any sort of difference? Just calm down and get on with your life!
Are you suggesting the Adver has lied, or made up, aspects of the case they've reported?
Jeeze! Naive or what! I rest my case - my job here is done. Goodbye!
[quote][p][bold]Ringer[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Phantom Poster[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ringer[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dukeofM4[/bold] wrote: If it was my sister, cousin, etch I'd advise them to 'skip' the system and make their own arrangements to make their life better. It's cheaper, faster, and more effective than the current system of victim-ism that we currently live with. You openly admit your lack of confidence in the justice system.[/p][/quote]Nobody with any sense can have any faith or confidence in the justice system in this country, that much is obvious. I also agree that if a serious crime is committed against a friend or family member then taking action against the criminal yourself is the only sensible option. BUT, would you not rather the criminal who committed the crime had been in prison - where they belong - rather than have been released early, or not even having received a custodial sentence because the deluded judge thinks they might somehow be 'rehabilitated', in order to commit their latest crime against your family member? I fail to see why we should continue to be forced to fund a Criminal Justice System which now exists solely for the benefit and nurture of criminals and which has not only zero interest in the victims of crime but which actively creates more (and needless) victims of crime through its refusal to apply its own Sentencing Guidelines correctly. In fact, it's even worse than that, because the ONLY thing the courts will come down hard on is when people take the law into their own hands. So, not only does the system support criminals but we're also prevented from doing anything about those criminals ourselves. The contract has been broken and the system has failed.[/p][/quote]Sorry. But it's extremely difficult to take seriously someone who takes as canon what he reads in the Adver about a court case. It also mystifies me mhy someone takes such efforts to post the same views over and over and over again here! Who do you think reads these comments such that it will make any sort of difference? Just calm down and get on with your life![/p][/quote]Are you suggesting the Adver has lied, or made up, aspects of the case they've reported?[/p][/quote]Jeeze! Naive or what! I rest my case - my job here is done. Goodbye! Phantom Poster

7:56am Sat 14 Dec 13

Ringer says...

So, the man in question hasn't been arrested previously? He didn't push his girlfriend over and fracture her skull? He didn't then walk free from court laughing his head off?

It's all lies?

This is terrible, surely something can be done about it?
So, the man in question hasn't been arrested previously? He didn't push his girlfriend over and fracture her skull? He didn't then walk free from court laughing his head off? It's all lies? This is terrible, surely something can be done about it? Ringer

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree