That Photo

If it weren’t where he did it Marlon I’d agree. But a precedent can only be set by handing out the 1st sentence law quite clearly states you can be jailed for this crime. ( it has to start somewhere. The lad in Sheffield escaped cos of his contritenes.) Being pissed is not an excuse however we look at it. This was the right time and right incident. As hopefully it sends out the right message. Everyone on here says some crimes are punished with too lenient a sentence. Maybe it’s time to make it mean summat. ( for the hardened criminal. They just laugh at the system. Time to stop that attitude.) Make the punishment fit the crime.
On the rushed issue I agree.

 

I've seen the photo and in my opinion hes no different to any Saturday night pisshead having a leak in an inconspicuous corner. I doubt he even read the plaque. If you look he's by the side of it, might even be pissing on the fence. Personally I don't think he's purposely desecrating a memorial. Still doesn't excuse the behaviour but calling for a long term jail sentence is a bit over the top in my opinion. The kid in Sheffield was far worse because he was actually urinating all over the memorial.

 

Sends a message to other 28 year old men who havent grown up yet.

 

Dangerous precedent HF imo , you can’t pick and choose what statues etc it’s either all or non otherwise a prejudice sets in as an eg defecating working class statues as the miners family one in Barnsley or Dickie birds only gets you a fine but Winston Churchill's etc gets you a jail sentence .
The lads done wrong no doubt about that and f were having a debate about desecrating memorials or statues etc to enhance sentences then let’s have it in the proper places not at a judges discretion .
I can’t help the feeling if this person had turned out to be a lords son or some other dignitary that sentence wouldn’t be forthcoming .
If we want harsher sentences for such things then let’s have a democratic debate not knee jerk reactions or outside pressures on judges

 

I agree Marlon that every sentence appears to be harsher for committing the same crime. That’s why I would welcome set sentences. Short of the death penalty that is. ( But many a time have I had that thought go through my head on certain cases.) But my head rules my heart on such issues.

One lad got 20 months for upskirting charged with the same offence.

We are not far apart mate.I just think we have to start somewhere and set sentences for the the crime committed. And yes I agree it shouldn’t be pick and chose. But as the saying goes you can only pee with the ***** you’ve got.

 

Same applies to the bloke pictured peeing up the churchill statue. However he seems to be allowed to do it to avoid upsetting the wrong people.

Philip Laing 2009 - 250 hours community service, another bloke in Leeds jailed I think for the same offence... Seems to be decided on how remorseful they are in front of the judge and how the judge is feeling that day.

 

The amusing thing is that he's wazzing on the very thing he's gone to "protect".

Sentence might be a little tough, maybe judge was just having a chuckle.

Good on him or her.

 

Relief.

 

I get that. but your only going on the evidence of the photo. What we don’t know is what, if any, other evidence was provided.
Looking at the puddle he created suggests he did only as you say.
I also said. His solicitor on that evidence Should have been able to get him off, But for me is the one to blame for not putting up a reasoned argument. If that’s all they had.
Bear in mind I know very little on the subject it’s only opinion.
Also based on The defendants accounts the lad did himself no favours. Bearing in mind he wasn’t arrested at the scene. And handed himself in at the request of his Dad. How that request was admonished may be another matter.
How many of us decided Ched Evans was guilty before His sentence and some still think it.
I certainly was one.
I still think what he did was abhorrent. But the evidence of the lass was blown away at the second trial.
What I’m trying to say it’s easy to jump to conclusions without all the facts.
At no stage in any of my posts on the subject have I said he’s innocent or guilty. I’m not in possession of all the facts.

 

Am I missing something though? I've seen the photo and unless I'm going blind there's a memorial which looks like a headstone and a man peeing about a foot to the side of it against a wall. Where's the pictures of him actually peeing on it which I keep hearing about?

Not defending him by the way

 

Philip laing:
urinated on war memorial
250 hours community service.

Ian Marshall:
urinated on war memorial.
160 hours community service.

Douglas Tullin:
urinated on war memorial.
£50 fine.

Wendy Lewis:
urinated on war memorial. Performed a sex act on war memorial. Assaulted a police officer. Assaulted a journalist. Swore at veterans. Absconded from court.
Suspended sentence

Andrew Banks
Urinated next to a memorial.
14 days prison


Nice bit of consistency there.

 

All the evidence mate.
None of us are in the privileged position of having that.
And tbh I’ve not heard the things you claim to keep hearing about. They’re just rumours I assume unless the pictures are out there or in police possession.
Ps if I believed everyone’s rumours on here re owt to do with the football club. We’d be swimming in players for a start. I’ve been to meetings. come out and thought I must have been somewhere else days later. On several occasions having to point out bullsh1t.

 

The past meeting you went to where jay went too was a prime example of why I really dislike those meetings though. You went, you listened and you reported back. Jay went, he listened and he reported back and on at least one matter you gave completely different accounts with you both interpreting it in the opposite ways. That's why I'd love them to be recorded like how Dane did the other day so then it's my problem if Im misinterpreting what he says, it isn't a Chinese whispers situation.

That's not a criticism of you or jay by the way it's just a good example of the problem with second hand information.

 

He doesn't slash directly on it, just next to it. But it's the beauty of the photo - "football lad" having a tinkle next to the thing he's "protecting"

I agree the sentence doesn't reflect the crime, your examples prove this.

I guess I just find it funny.

 

I was looking for these details so thanks for saving me the time.

While I think hes a moron who desperately needs to grow up I think a fine and a community sentence would have been more appropriate.

Had he directly and obviously had a slash on the memorial then I could have agreed with the sentence but now a precedent has been set so all the little toe-rags who think its appropriate to vandalise / desecrate memorials in the future must also be sent to prison.

 

And will the thugs who have defaced some of our public monuments over the last couple of weeks also face custodial sentences if they end up in court.

 

I find it quite funny too. Ironic that he's claiming to protect the memorials but clearly doesn't actually know anything about them

 

I can't verify the accuracy of this statement but apparently he said he'd gone to protect statues (plural) but had no idea which ones.

And the best thing to do when you want to protect monuments from yobs who want to attack them is to have so much to drink that you end up pi55ing next to the memorial of a murdered policeman.

 

Absolutely.

I was sat next to Jay and it was the only one thing I think we interpreted differently. We did discuss it at the time. And if anyone asked me about that particular question I tried to point out that it was differently viewed by others. ( maybe in hindsight we should have asked for a clearer explanation. But the meeting had moved on while me and Jay discussed the issue)

It’s difficult to put into writing such instances. We could only put our own slant on it. What wasn’t in question was the statement. Just our individual interpretation of it. We didn’t fall out over it or owt.

The instances I’m referring to were so stupid I’m sure Me and Jay would agree they’d been twisted by someone not present to suit their own agenda.

Jay did in fact record the meeting. But Gally didn’t get round to putting it into print. Cos it had already been done to death on here.

Some of the comments actually coming out during the meeting via social media were absolutely not representative of what was actually said. going out before the subject closed. Shame on them for being too eager to get stuff out.

I’m quite happy to say I took a lot of flack that night cos of others being too quick off the mark and having to put it right. After listening to the full explanations.

I have honestly no agenda. I don’t support this board on most issues. I certainly won’t lie to save their necks. But I won’t let my emotions criticise for the sake of it.

Have they slightly changed some hardline views. Absolutely. I welcome that. So I won’t throw it back in their faces. So to speak. The more they listen and understand./ Alter stance can only be a good thing. Throwing stuff in their faces and not letting up. moving onto old hat. Ain’t gonna improve things.

I was probably the most vocal on the night criticising several issues. The Stendel statement. Pointing out they should have consulted the media team on what was going to obviously be a contentious issue.
The lack of experience would be foolish at best.
Just 2 of em .

Ps all this criticism about what’s happened to the transfer money. Why do we need to sell season tickets. They’re billionaires when they said the money has already been spent. Meant it had been allocated going forward. But the amount is also based on expected revenue coming in. I’m no expert but I realise how we ended up in administration due to the collapse of the ITV contract. Spending money we thought we were going to get but didn’t. A business brain would put it over far better than I can. So all those that criticise really don’t put a great amount of thought into it.
Years ago I would have been one of those with the same views.

 

Cheers for that. Those buggers who read the social media updates and jumped to conclusions are complete t**ts aren't they *ahem*

Hopefully after how well Danes video was received last week they'll find a way to reach a satisfactory agreement for the club where the meeting is recorded and then published on ifollow or something even if the video doesn't cover the entire meeting and some parts are kept off record. That way people like you can attend, ask questions and hold them accountable and we all benefit in a first hand account of what the reply is without silly arguments of you thought it meant one thing another thought it meant something else and a pillock on Twitter had already tweeted what was said before they'd finished the saying hello.

My biggest issue at the moment regarding money is that a pay deferral for players, execs and struber is essentially just a loan to help with cash flow rather than being a reduction in wages that helps the bank balance long term and the club in the season ticket article referred to cash flow rather than to overall bank balance. Instead of asking players, manager and employees to defer wages (and essentially loan the club money) it should in my opinion be our owners who loan the money to their own company. Not gift money it anything but simply use their own supposed billions to loan money for a few months rather than asking Jacob brown to loan them the money.