Blogroll Me!
Meet Stephen Gordon, 44, From Croydon, South London ...
If this isn't an actual act of atrocious and vicious terrorism, committed by a 42 year old British terrorist against a disabled 96 year old soldier, then what the hell is?
Eh? What the hell is?
A three year supervision order ???????
WTF???????
No wonder that while we watched this w*nker on television -- he was laughing all over his effing face.
Good Gawdstrewth! Give us strength.
And just in case anyone missed it the first time, here once again is the crazed, criminal, cretin who was caught, tried and convicted of committing this completely uncalled for, cowardly, callous crime:
Stephen Gordon, 44, from CROYDON, South London.
May you live through interesting times, mate.
Eh? What the hell is?
Attacker of elderly man sentencedRead the rest of this revolting report -- and see the CCTV footage of the attack.
CCTV image
Mr Chaudury walks with the aid of two walking sticks
A man who left a 96-year-old war veteran blind in one eye after attacking him on a packed tram has been given a three-year supervision order.
Stephen Gordon, 44, launched his unprovoked attack on Shah Chaudury in Croydon, south London, in December.
Gordon, from Croydon, was found guilty of grievous bodily harm after the attack was caught on CCTV, Croydon Crown Court heard.
A three year supervision order ???????
WTF???????
No wonder that while we watched this w*nker on television -- he was laughing all over his effing face.
Good Gawdstrewth! Give us strength.
And just in case anyone missed it the first time, here once again is the crazed, criminal, cretin who was caught, tried and convicted of committing this completely uncalled for, cowardly, callous crime:
Stephen Gordon, 44, from CROYDON, South London.
May you live through interesting times, mate.
Labels: Shah Chaudury, Stephen Gordon
posted by Richard at Tuesday, October 23, 2007
15 Comments:
Ah Richard, Why no mention of the fact that this man,Stephen Gordon, is a paranoid schizophrenic.
The judge took this into account, and decided that sending a mentally ill person to jail would benefit no-one.
Some press reports mention his illness, the one you quote does not.
Yes, the attack was callous and unprovoked, but the verdict was just. We cannot send the mentally ill to jails, who have neither the resources or time to treat these people. British prisons are crammed with the mentally ill, most of whom are born with their afflictions.
Schizophrenia is frightening enough, without being locked away for 23 hours per day, often ridiculed and bullied by guards and prisoners alike.
Which is why, in my humble opinion, the judge did the right thing.
I watched a TV news item on this and he did walk away from court grinning from ear to ear.
Is his illness also to blame for the fact that even now he thinks what he did to this old man was funny?
Has he shown any contrition at all?
Regarding the difference between a prison sentence and a supervision order - I don't know enough about supervision orders or what they mean exactly. I do know about someone being 'sectioned' though, and I thnk that this is the very least thing that should have been the outcome.
Also, why should any illness endow any individual with "exempt" status where crime and punishment are concerned?
He may well need help but he still needs punishing ... what he did was inexcusable. His illness did NOT prevent him from seeing the age, condition, physical disability of this poor man. Are the mentally disabled a superior class, as opposed to the physicaly disabled. Or frail or aged?
"Reasons" for such actions are one thing but are not an "excuse". To have such walking "time bombs" freely roaming the streets is nothing more than negligence ... in my humble opinion.
This old man has been blinded, for no good reason ... by an individual who still thinks it's something to laugh about. So next time he fancies a bit of laugh I wonder who's line to get wgat from him?
I'm another who admits to not understanding the meaning of supervision orders so immediately after reading the previous two comments I've done a web search to try to educate myself.
All that I've found so far is that this seems to one particular form of juvenile justice.
If that indeed is the case then I have to say that justice has not been done. However for want of a better idea by the judge this Gordon fellow will even be properly 'chastised' ~ never mind punished.
Like the previous posters though I'll add ~ in my humble opinion. And hope against hope that I'm never unfortunate enough to have him cross my path ~ nor any similar individuals.
For that reason alone I think it's right that as many people as possible are made aware of who this man is and where one is likely to run into him. At that btw is not a humble opinion ~ that's a very strong opinion. A very, very strong one.
My mistake ~ I should have typed "will NOT even be properly chastised.
Should we punish the mentally ill?
Their actions are often symptoms of their diseases.
Would you prosecute the incontinent pensioner who soils herself on public transport?
Should we prosecute and chastise the epileptic who has a fit in a public place?
Or the schizophrenic with a problem of violent behaviour?
Yes the grin as he emerged from court is probably another sign of his illness, many of the mentally ill have underdeveloped brain functions, not unlike young children.
What should be under condemnation is the appallingly low amount of education and funding that surrounds the issue of mental health.
Stephen Gordon should be treated for his illness, even if he has to be placed in a secure hospital, but prison or "chastisement" will only teach him more violence, such is the nature of schizophrenia.
Which of his personalities would you punish?
Could you be sure that you are punishing the appropriate part of his brain, which is incapable of functioning on a "normal" level.
Let us not forget that not so long ago in british law , gay people were considered to be criminals, and many were sent to jail.
Just a few decades back, women were considered (by parliament), as "feeble-minded", and with that label, were denied the right to vote.
Women were also paid far less than men for exactly the same work, as they were deemed, "weaker".
Gay people and women are no longer treated as second class citizens, so why should the plight of the mentally ill be used as a cheap filler for the populist press?
As a layman I won't pretend to be qualified to pass judgement, be it medical or judicial.
What I will say is that I'm glad that -via the media and Richard and others- I've been made aware of this Gordon guy. Now myself and my family have been givien the opportunity to give him a very wide berth if and when we ever see him.
Landska makes one valid point, at least. The largest hospital for the mentally ill in my own home town was closed down under Thatcher's 'Care in the Community' edict. It wasn't just a big hospital, it was a busy hospital. As a consequence of its closure, both the in-patients and the out-patients were turfed out, and left to fend for themselves. According to my neighbour, who worked there, patient cases ranges from the paranoid schitzoprenics (a danger to everyone), to those who suffered severe 'panic attacks' and just needed a sympathetic ear; (no danger to anyone). I didn't think much about it at the time, and then our local paper started carrying stories like yours above, of people being attacked by these ex-patients.
ps. I've never had a humble opinion in my life, and I don't intend to start now!
*sweetoldlady*
According to the post from Landsker this violent criminal can be excused because he is mentally ill-and so can continue to terrorise local people.This sort of stupidity is what allows violent selfish thugs to roam the streets.He should be locked up to protect the public-or else vigilantes should remove him.
I case we ever needed reminding - life really IS a bitch sometimes.
I can see that everyone who's posted before me is so sincere in their beliefs of what's 'for the best'.
Here's my own 2p worth. Landsker's right on these counts. The perp is ill. He does need help+treatment.
By the same token, the old guy and indeed the general public at large also need protection from such possible dangers posed.
After thinking long and hard on this one I've come to the conclusion that the best thing the judge could(should) have done was send him to one of the secure hospitals Landsker mentioned.
Surely this is exactly the kind situation+patient for which those hospitals were introduced.
Secure hospital gets my vote. Best for all concerned I think.
landsker--
Violence is not a symptom of paranoid schizophrenia. The mentally ill are no more likely to be violent than the rest of us. One of my neighbors is a paranoid schizophrenic, and I've worked with them and other chronically mentally ill people in the past. They are a lot more likely to be victims of abuse than they are to be perpetrators.
In other words, Gordon's illness does not excuse his crime. And as many have pointed out, society has to be protected in any case. It's possible that with proper medication and supervision he can be prevented from attacking people in the future.
Finally, I think it's really a shame that the mentally ill aren't given the care that they need and instead fill our prisons, at great additional expense.
OK, I'm convinced. Secure hospital it should have been. I wonder why it wasn't? Surely a judge should be aware of that option? Like whoever said, that's what they're there for isn't it?
One thing that's not been mentioned by anyone about this case, is the fact that it took young kids to 'do the right thing'.
Look at the able-bodied young adults stood watching what's happening. Yet they left it to two little kids to chase after this attacker?
I wonder why? Where they all cowards? All so scared of this 'wild-man'? Or perhaps just too P.C. -- ie;none-judgemental?
Anyway, justice was not done here -- not even to this mentally ill man. True 'blind' justice would have resulted in the convicted being both denied liberty for a period of time -- AND being treated at the same time -- in a secure hospital.
That way, both the general public at risk AND the individual with an illness so obviously requiring urgent treatment would have been served well.
True, life can be a bitch -- but should we meekly accept that as a given? Shouldn't we [all] do what we can to try to make [any] bitches or bitchiness less nasty -- in every way possible?
Or should we do what the bystanders on the tram did? Nothing! What a cop-out. The "Not my job, mate," mentallity that's all far too prevalent these days.
As I said, all that stuff's a cop-out --bottom line -- no excuses -- end of story.
Of course we should punish the ill, Landsker, when they've been fairly tried and found guilty of commiting a violent crime. Whether the illness is of a medical, surgical or mental nature.
But please don't read into my words that I think he shouldn't be treated for a serious illness.
I cannot believe what a load of namby pamby softly softly twaddle I'm reading. Yes this man does need help and treatment but it must begin with a fronatl lobotomy.
If this bastard had carried his assault on one of my parents I would like to have had the opportunity to carry out his treatment with a blunt screwdriver.
We have gone totally soft on the perpretrators of violent crime and it's no wonder our society is rapidly disappearing down the tubes. As for the judge (?) well i can only hope there something in this karma stuff people go on about. I suspect he should have some coming his way.
Post a Comment
<< Home