What are your thoughts on the Ian Wright/Patrick O'Brien situation?

Muahahaha

Just as a comparison the UK Crown Prosecution Service have sentencing guidelines on conviction for
s.18 - using threatening/abusive/insulting words or behaviour or displaying written material with intent/likely to stir up racial hatred

Maximum penalty for this in the Magistrates' court is 6 months imprisonment. They do suspended sentences over there too and a first time offender of the above would be given one and not serve time unless it was other offences like assault on top. But they would be unlikely to get away altogether without a conviction. Its the minimum Ian Wright would have been hoping for, have to say I would agree with him.

The Inbetween is mine

Shane Driscoll wrote: »

Someone said he's a traveller. If true it's not like he has to worry about getting a job or anything

Just as an aside... whenever we see high profile cases involving travellers, there is almost always a posse of family accompanying the accused for moral support shall we say.
For any and all televised court appearances over the last year it was just 2 people Patrick & his mother

Annasopra

Muahahaha wrote: »

Just as a comparison the UK Crown Prosecution Service have sentencing guidelines on conviction for
s.18 - using threatening/abusive/insulting words or behaviour or displaying written material with intent/likely to stir up racial hatred

Maximum penalty for this in the Magistrates' court is 6 months imprisonment. They do suspended sentences over there too and a first time offender of the above would be given one and not serve time unless it was other offences like assault on top. But they would be unlikely to get away altogether without a conviction. Its the minimum Ian Wright would have been hoping for, have to say I would agree with him.

Yeah. I agree. I think 1 months prison for this would be perfectly reasonable.

Ted_YNWA

Shane Driscoll wrote: »

Just saying, ya shouldn't be slagging some young lad for "living his life online' when ya obviously spend a great deal of time online yourself!

Shane Driscoll wrote: »

Sure. And you spend the rest of your day doing normal adult things.

Shane Driscoll wrote: »

Someone said he's a traveller. If true it's not like he has to worry about getting a job or anything

Mod

Don't post in this thread again.

None of your posts here are in anyway done in good faith.

nullzero

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Yeah. I agree. I think 1 months prison for this would be perfectly reasonable.

It isn't.

We can't send violent criminals to prison in this country never mind teenage boys calling people names on the Internet.

The taxpayer is supposed to foot the bill every time an idiot spouts some racist nonsense online?

We don't have the capacity in our prisons to even entertain this but yeah send him to prison to satiate the needs of some people on the Internet.

Before anyone says it, I'm not defending the guy, what he did was wrong, but a bit of perspective is required.

nullzero

JeffreyEpspeen wrote: »

Ian Wright mocked Roy Keane's accent on live TV in front of millions of viewers. Hopefully he learned a lesson of his own through this. 18 or 19 years old is old enough to know better and so is 57.

We all know anti Irish abuse is perfectly acceptable.

Annasopra

nullzero wrote: »

It isn't.

We can't send violent criminals to prison in this country never mind teenage boys calling people names on the Internet.

The taxpayer is supposed to foot the bill every time an idiot spouts some racist nonsense online?

We don't have the capacity in our prisons to even entertain this but yeah send him to prison to satiate the needs of some people on the Internet.

Before anyone says it, I'm not defending the guy, what he did was wrong, but a bit of perspective is required.

Your points dont make sense
A) we never argue in other cases about the taxpayer paying etc so not sure why thats relevant
you seem to be minimising the issue as a throwaway comment with no victims involved; Ian Wright is a victim here of a serious death threat
C) the internet is real life; a real persons life was threatened because of the colour of their skin; this isnt about satiating peoples needs - it is about addressing real life serious issues where people are sent death threats and targeted racially.

Fran has a bone

A serious death threat? Hyperbole much. There was no serious death threat or charge relating.

nullzero

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Your points dont make sense
A) we never argue in other cases about the taxpayer paying etc so not sure why thats relevant
you seem to be minimising the issue as a throwaway comment with no victims involved; Ian Wright is a victim here of a serious death threat
C) the internet is real life; a real persons life was threatened because of the colour of their skin; this isnt about satiating peoples needs - it is about addressing real life serious issues where people are sent death threats and targeted racially.

My points don't make sense?

Do you believe some stupid kid making racist remarks should be locked up before the scores of violent offenders who receive suspended sentences from our judicial system?

I never minimized the issue in any way. I stated that what happened was wrong but not as serious as other cases brought before the courts in Ireland.

It's clear that you have no idea what you're talking about in relation to sentencing. There are plenty of cases where more substantive threats are made to people in person where the defendants walk away with a Slap on the wrist or less.

If you had the first notion of how the Irish legal system works you would know why I said expecting the young man in question to receive a custodial sentence is demonstrably unrealistic.

Does he morally deserve to be locked up? Yes.
Are there more egregious cases before the courts that are more deserving of custodial sentences that also see the defendants walking away to walk our streets? Definitely.
That's why locking him up is a nett loss to the Irish taxpayer, we simply get more value for locking up those more deserving of being locked up.

That's the perspective you need to consider.

OneEightSeven

mariaalice wrote: »

The oddest thing is how could a teenager living in a place that would only have a few black people developed such racist, ideas, and beliefs and then decide to target an English footballer with them someone he never met and was unlikely to ever meet.

It's odd but it's not surprising. Trump and Le Pen get the majority of their votes from countryside people. You would think people living in Paris and London would be rabidly anti-Muslim after all of the terror attacks and despise Sadiq Khan for trying to normalise it with statements like "part and parcel of living in a big city", but cities are full of woke, college-educated people. Opinion polls show Khan will be reelected and Macron will win the majority Paris.

Tombo2001

silverharp wrote: »

on the scale of things I'd rate a serial bike thief worse than what I will call a mistake this lad made. I dont get the whole puritan head on a stick attitude though, its just a classic manufactured outrage story and people are playing their parts.

Ive had a series of bikes stolen off me, and I would see this as far far worse.

But thats just my opinion, as a white Irish person who has no real idea what racism feels like.

Tombo2001

Fran has a bone wrote: »

I've always liked Ian, I have his autobiography from years ago. What the kid sent him was horrible.

I don't get the complaints about the sentencing from people though. The sentence needs to be taken in the context of the Irish legal system, and it isn't any surprise. Far worse crimes are committed and get similar sentences on a daily basis.Remember the acid attack that wasn't even brought to court?

That is true - and there are thousands of victims of crime in Ireland, and their families, who feel the same way about Irish justice that Ian Wright does about the sentence.

I'm glad he has called it out publicly, even though he probably doesnt realise what it is that he's calling out.

I will never forget the shock when a local kid was killed in a hit and run, and the driver got a suspended sentence.

Annasopra

Tombo2001 wrote: »

That is true - and there are thousands of victims of crime in Ireland, and their families, who feel the same way about Irish justice that Ian Wright does about the sentence.

I'm glad he has called it out publicly, even though he probably doesnt realise what it is that he's calling out.

I will never forget the shock when a local kid was killed in a hit and run, and the driver got a suspended sentence.

I think he does realise.

“My forgiveness of this young man was for my own deeply personal need and desire to move forward without further anguish,”

“I’m a 57-year-old man who has experienced racism throughout my life. I wasn’t expecting my forgiveness to be an invitation to lighten a sentence. Seeing this judgement, I can only wonder what deterrent there is for anyone else who spouts this kind of vile racist abuse.

“An individual wished death upon me because of my skin colour. No judge’s claims of ‘naivety’ or ‘immaturity’ will ever be acceptable to us. The supposed immaturity and naivety of our attackers is never any comfort.

“So yeah, I am disappointed. I’m tired. We are all tired.”

inforfun

Not just for the racism but add the covid threat, no matter how unlikely he would be able to do so, and for me there is enough to lock up the guy a bit.
Also the judge's remarks of not wanting to ruin the guy's future..... He doesnt need the judge for that, he was able to do so himself just fine.

Mysterypunter

I read in a report, that the idiot abused Ian Wright because he was playing a computer game and his virtual Ian Wright played badly? I don't know if this means his computer player missed a few chances, if it does this clown must have **** for brains, sawdust in the head, does that mean the equivalent of me playing Brian Lara cricket on the PlayStation, and playing as Brian Lara, and getting out for 0 against England, calling him a dark coloured waster, but in real life, Lara is getting 400 against England? Was it really because his PlayStation Ian Wright was rubbish? What a bizzare excuse, on top of a racist, how is this **** in 3rd level education?

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

weldoninhio wrote: »

Read up a bit there, with convictions it’s hard as google argue public interest. This lad wasn’t convicted so will be able to have his name removed. He’s off scot free.

Oh okay, I thought he did get a conviction but just with a lenient sentence. Yeah, he’ll be able to get his google mentions wiped so. In that case, that’s pretty annoying. I was thinking that those with criminal convictions wouldn’t find it so easy. I remember when I filled in the form, it was made clear that they would assess whether it would be removed. It was for my case because it was nothing criminal.

weldoninhio

JJayoo wrote: »

Well he's fcuked now, any search of his name will link back to this incident so it will follow him for the rest of his life.

I hope poor Ian will finally be able to sleep at night.

Unless he fills out an incredibly simple online form and Google removes them. He got no punishment.

BPKS

Mysterypunter wrote: »

I read in a report, that the idiot abused Ian Wright because he was playing a computer game and his virtual Ian Wright played badly? I don't know if this means his computer player missed a few chances, if it does this clown must have **** for brains, sawdust in the head, does that mean the equivalent of me playing Brian Lara cricket on the PlayStation, and playing as Brian Lara, and getting out for 0 against England, calling him a dark coloured waster, but in real life, Lara is getting 400 against England? Was it really because his PlayStation Ian Wright was rubbish? What a bizzare excuse, on top of a racist, how is this **** in 3rd level education?

It was in the early hours of the morning. The lad was probably p1ssed. Not an excuse but we've all done stupid things when p1ssed. This gobsh1te should keep his phone away from him after a few drinks too many.

partyguinness

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Yeah. I agree. I think 1 months prison for this would be perfectly reasonable.

That was never going to happen. Not in a million years.

I know the District Court and I know exactly how the Judge looked at it. While not everyone agrees of course but it was a consistent result.

In fact I would go further and say that the Judge took responsibility- he quite easily could have just kicked it to touch with the easy option i.e. convicted and 1 month in jail but we all know (well those of us familiar with such matter) that it would have gone striaght to the Circuit Court on appeal. Further taking up time and expense and all just to satisfy the mob.

weldoninhio

nullzero wrote: »

My points don't make sense?

Do you believe some stupid kid making racist remarks should be locked up before the scores of violent offenders who receive suspended sentences from our judicial system?

I never minimized the issue in any way. I stated that what happened was wrong but not as serious as other cases brought before the courts in Ireland.

It's clear that you have no idea what you're talking about in relation to sentencing. There are plenty of cases where more substantive threats are made to people in person where the defendants walk away with a Slap on the wrist or less.

If you had the first notion of how the Irish legal system works you would know why I said expecting the young man in question to receive a custodial sentence is demonstrably unrealistic.

Does he morally deserve to be locked up? Yes.
Are there more egregious cases before the courts that are more deserving of custodial sentences that also see the defendants walking away to walk our streets? Definitely.
That's why locking him up is a nett loss to the Irish taxpayer, we simply get more value for locking up those more deserving of being locked up.

That's the perspective you need to consider.

How much would a criminal conviction and the €500 fine have cost the taxpayer? As it stands the only punishment he got was handing over pocket money.

Nozebleed

back in late 90's ian wright accused peter schmeichel of racism..a claim that had no foundation. a clear attempt to destroy the career and life of a player in his prime. without any evidence or truth.

wright is nothing more than a modern day race baiter.

weldoninhio

Nozebleed wrote: »

back in late 90's ian wright accused peter schmeichel of racism..a claim that had no foundation. a clear attempt to destroy the career and life of a player in his prime. without any evidence or truth.

wright is nothing more than a modern day race baiter.

That didn’t happen though, did it??


Peter Schmeichel will not face charges of racism resulting from allegations made after his confrontation with Arsenal's Ian Wright late last year.

Television pictures appeared to show Schmeichel mouthing insults at Wright during Manchester United's 1-0 victory over Arsenal at Old Trafford on 16 November.

Ian Wright: "I am happy to comply with the wishes of the FA and would add that, despite being approached three times by the CPS to make a statement or complaint based on video evidence, I have not done so for the benefit of football and everybody concerned with our national game."

partyguinness

Nozebleed wrote: »

back in late 90's ian wright accused peter schmeichel of racism..a claim that had no foundation. a clear attempt to destroy the career and life of a player in his prime. without any evidence or truth.

wright is nothing more than a modern day race baiter.

I was no fan of Wright as a player but that is completely irrelevant and an extremely worrying post.

He was subjected to disgusting racial abuse from a complete stranger purely based on the colour of his skin. Period.

Nozebleed

weldoninhio wrote: »

That didn’t happen though, did it??


Peter Schmeichel will not face charges of racism resulting from allegations made after his confrontation with Arsenal's Ian Wright late last year.

Television pictures appeared to show Schmeichel mouthing insults at Wright during Manchester United's 1-0 victory over Arsenal at Old Trafford on 16 November.

Ian Wright: "I am happy to comply with the wishes of the FA and would add that, despite being approached three times by the CPS to make a statement or complaint based on video evidence, I have not done so for the benefit of football and everybody concerned with our national game."

yeh,because it was a false allegation. he new it had no foundation and had no reason to make a statement to the CPS. he has no credibility whatsoever.

weldoninhio

Nozebleed wrote: »

yeh,because it was a false allegation. he new it had no foundation and had no reason to make a statement to the CPS. he has no credibility whatsoever.

He never made the allegation. Someone who seen it on TV did. He was "approached three times by the CPS to make a statement or complaint". :rolleyes:

JimmyVik

silverharp wrote: »

on the scale of things I'd rate a serial bike thief worse than what I will call a mistake this lad made. I dont get the whole puritan head on a stick attitude though, its just a classic manufactured outrage story and people are playing their parts.

Id love to hear how all the people demanding blood would feel if their their own teenage kids came out with something like that. Should they go to jail too?
And they better not say "Well MY child would never do that."

zimmermania

partyguinness wrote: »

That was never going to happen. Not in a million years.

I know the District Court and I know exactly how the Judge looked at it. While not everyone agrees of course but it was a consistent result.

In fact I would go further and say that the Judge took responsibility- he quite easily could have just kicked it to touch with the easy option i.e. convicted and 1 month in jail but we all know (well those of us familiar with such matter) that it would have gone striaght to the Circuit Court on appeal. Further taking up time and expense and all just to satisfy the mob.

If you are referring to all those who consider that racist remarks have no place in society a "mob"i find your remarks offensive.

I am also puzzled that you can claim that he would have gone to the circuit court to appeal the 1 month in jail!.How do you know that or are just making an assumption?

If he had the neck to appeal a 1 month sentence (had he received it) i would be hopeful that the sentence would be increased to 3 months which might be more appropriate for the vile remarks directed at another human being and such a sentence might deter others of a like mind to keep their racist remarks to themselves.

JimmyVik

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

I had something with my name on it removed from a google search before. There was a bit of a process. Mine wasn’t crime related so I succeeded but there was no guarantee when I submitted the request.

I know someone with a name that is not common, but a person unrelated to him in his home town committed an ghastly crime. All over the nationwide news it was.
People threw eggs and stuff at his house, broke his windows and terrorized his mother. He was sure that he wasnt getting jobs or apartments because of it too.
Eventually he looked into getting this other guys name taken down off google searches. And he was successful.

JimmyVik

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Did you ever racially abuse someone and send them death threats?

Yes.

Have you ever done anything you are not proud of when you were young?

nullzero

weldoninhio wrote: »

How much would a criminal conviction and the €500 fine have cost the taxpayer? As it stands the only punishment he got was handing over pocket money.

Did you read what I wrote?

There are countless other people who have committed far more egregious offences who will not see the inside of a cell either.

The state is overflowing with scumbags walking the streets with suspended sentences, why would this person be ahead of them in the queue to serve time in prison?

Would you prefer to see some stupid kid who made racist remarks over the Internet locked up before somebody who committed a violent crime? That's where value for money for the taxpayer comes into play.