Happy Slapper get's, well, Slapped!

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

Forgive me Tango, but aren't your lot supposed to 'turn the other cheek' when this sort of thing occurs?

It's completely disingenuous to say that the fact of the slap 'only' involving an open palm (and, more realistically, open fingers) is irrelevant. It isn't. Whilst it is true that 'an unexpected slap could cause a heart attack or a serious fall', the criminal law is equipped to deal with such consequences. I am aware that perforated eardrums are also a very real possiblity when somebody is 'Tangoed' (sorry to take your name in vain Dancer!). I abhor the deplorable random assaults of these idiot youths, made all the more distasteful by the boastful filiming on mobile phones. I would throw the book at the slapper, and the person doing the filming - they are both criminally liable (to the same degree, incidentally).

Commie gets to the heart of the issue when he observes that happy slapping realistically has as much to do with humiliation as it has violence. For the most part, as reckless (in the non-legal sense) as the slapping is, there is no real attempt to inflict physical harm, any more than there was when Diouf hocked over De Zeeuw's face. Whether a person of average intelligence would see that there is a not insignificant risk of doing some serious damage to the victim with the proverbial 'eggshell skull' is niether here nor there in the present discussion - it is clear that we are not discussing people endowed with anywhere near average native wit.

The slap in the video is criminally punishable; it is a humiliating trespass of the person, made all the more despicable by the delight that is taken in capturing it on 'film'. However, although slaps can be dangerous, and although victims can't be sure that they are 'only' going to get a slap when such an assault takes place, that is not what happened in this video. The Scouse thug was outraged at the humiliation he suffered at the hands of the little bastard, almost certainly unaware that it was all being filmed. He was not acting in self defence - his attacker had run off to (what he inexplicably regarded as) safety, and he chased after him (no attempt to explain his action as a split-second, reflex response is credible), punching him very hard in the head. While we are talking about the fortuity of consequences, would this incident take on a new light if the chav hit his head on the pavement as he fell down and either died or suffered permanent brain damage? The risks one takes when delivering a heavy fist to the head are considerably greater than those involved in applying fingers to the cheek.

In short, the Daily Mail hero was not responding to what he considered a real and imminent threat of serious physical harm - he was handing out his own retribution for a humiliating affront to his manliness. It was a wholly inappropriate, unreasonable and, in the end, gratuitous response to what happened to him. You can argue that 'but for' the happy slapper he would have just carried on with his own business. Happily the criminal law does not agree with such prehistoric conceptions of causation and is as prepared to punish completely unreasonable responses to the trials life throws up as it is pre-planned and unprovoked atrocities.

I'm no liberal, much less a do-gooder, but as somebody who dedicates an unhealthy proportion of his life to the law, it saddens me that I now live in a society that appears to have regressed at least three millenia because of its lack of faith in the law enforcement agencies. One could, and I do, argue that stronger sentences should be handed down to criminals, but whatever criticism you might have of these 'damn judges' you know feck all about and have never tried to find out, they do not get the theoretical and doctrinal side of the law wrong in this area.

[plodder]

SO to twist it a bit, what when the law doesn't work?

Drunk driver gets 18 months for admitting driving whilst under the influence and causing the death of two children walking on the pavement?

Serial rapist on parole re-offends.

Murder suspect on remand commits double murder.

Perhaps that is why I believe the current legal system is complete bollocks. Too bust crossing t's and dotting i's to actually do anything about this.

How many comittee's do you really need to decide that the law is fatally flawed. Thoroughly researched and theoretically correct but fatally flawed non-theless.

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

Perhaps that is why I believe the current legal system is complete bollocks. Too bust crossing t's and dotting i's to actually do anything about this.

How many comittee's do you really need to decide that the law is fatally flawed. Thoroughly researched and theoretically correct but fatally flawed non-theless.

Most of what you're talking about sounds like the implementation of the law, rather than its principles.

If you disagree, by all means campaign for law reform. Not vigilante violence.

[plodder]

Vigilate violence. Nope.

Do unto others as they do unto you. Absolutely.

Campaign for Law Reform.

Nope. I'll leave that to those over-paid lawyers who can't get a proper job and are paid by people to implement loop-holes and breaks into the system.

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

Vigilate violence. Nope.

Do unto others as they do unto you. Absolutely.

As I've already gone to some length to point out, even if this proposition were sound, the thuggish 'victim' cannot sensibly be regarded to have acted in kind.

Campaign for Law Reform.

Nope. I'll leave that to those over-paid lawyers who can't get a proper job and are paid by people to implement loop-holes and breaks into the system.

As you suggest by implication, being a lawyer is not only a proper job, but also one of the most important there is. Anti-intellectualism, anti-legalism and inverted snobbery are all contributing factors to the kind of decline in society's standards that you complain of.

[plodder]

As you suggest by implication, being a lawyer is not only a proper job, but also one of the most important there is. Anti-intellectualism, anti-legalism and inverted snobbery are all contribing factors to the kind of decline in society's standards that you complain of.

Are infact all bollocks made up pish.

Anti-intellectualism= Stupidity.
Anti-legalism= Made up word.
Inverted snobbery= I don't know, perhaps Monty can help me out.

Thanks for proving a point. Twas interesting to see you "legally" defending the person who initially slapped. Then straight away defending the victim.

Points of law perhaps but what would you do if it happened to you?

I have stated what I would and have done in similar circumstance. No pissing around behind word and jurisprudence. Just smack the little shite in a manner befitiing the crime. 10 lashes with barbed wire if needed. They will not do it again. I think the Islamic Religious Courts have a fair sense of the law.

[50sQuiff]

I think the Islamic Religious Courts have a fair sense of the law.

I know nowadays we're all for pissing away the principles which have made Western societies so successful , but that really is going out on a limb Plods!

[plodder]

I think the Islamic Religious Courts have a fair sense of the law.

I know nowadays we're all for pissing away the principles which have made Western societies so successful , but that really is going out on a limb Plods!

Why?

They treat all fairly and harshly by one set of rules. There are no special circumstances to consider, no adjournment for Social reports. Here is the evidence, here is the consequence.

Do you get many re-offenders from Islamic Courts?

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

I think the Islamic Religious Courts have a fair sense of the law.

I know nowadays we're all for pissing away the principles which have made Western societies so successful , but that really is going out on a limb Plods!

Ah Quiff, you do read these rants of mine after all!

As you suggest by implication, being a lawyer is not only a proper job, but also one of the most important there is. Anti-intellectualism, anti-legalism and inverted snobbery are all contribing factors to the kind of decline in society's standards that you complain of.

Are infact all bollocks made up pish.

Anti-intellectualism= Stupidity.
Anti-legalism= Made up word.
Inverted snobbery= I don't know, perhaps Monty can help me out.

Thanks for proving a point. Twas interesting to see you "legally" defending the person who initially slapped. Then straight away defending the victim.

Points of law perhaps but what would you do if it happened to you?

I have stated what I would and have done in similar circumstance. No pissing around behind word and jurisprudence. Just smack the little shite in a manner befitiing the crime. 10 lashes with barbed wire if needed. They will not do it again. I think the Islamic Religious Courts have a fair sense of the law.

I assume you accept that 'anti' is a prefix capable of extremely widespread application. The word 'legalism' most certainly exists. If you turn to your no doubt well-thumbed copy of the O.E.D., you will read the following offered as a definition:

A disposition to exalt the importance of law or formulated rule in any department of action.

The anti-lawyer response to the 'have you had an accident at work' culture has got out of hand. Not all lawyers are money-grabbing vultures; the good ones are the bedrock of society.

[communistworkethic]

As you suggest by implication, being a lawyer is not only a proper job, but also one of the most important there is.

I think he's suggesting exactly the opposite.

[plodder]

Tis different ponds we swim in.

We could have an interesting conversation in six or seven years once you have qualified and gained some experience.

As for now. Log off.

You should be studying.

[plodder]

As you suggest by implication, being a lawyer is not only a proper job, but also one of the most important there is.

I think he's suggesting exactly the opposite.

Not at all.

Some lawyers have proper jobs.

Others don't.

Am I going to fast for anyone? Anyway I have had enough of trying to explain my views on this. I'll say it slowly one final time.

Do unto others as they do unto you.

I think I read that in a book somewhere.

[communistworkethic]

The anti-lawyer response to the 'have you had an accident at work' culture has got out of hand. Not all lawyers are money-grabbing vultures; the good ones are the bedrock of society.

Well that all depends on your definition of "good ones" doesn't it?

Nick Freeman - Mr Loophole, just got that piece of scum, Bowyer, off with a 42 day ban and £650 fine for his third speeding offence of over 100mph on technicalities - he had been clocked between 112 & 132mph. Obviously he's good at ripping the law apart but good at ensuring justice prevails? I'd suggest there's an argument to be had there. Bowyer is a menace, what good has society been served by him being allowed to drive and paying out a fine of about 3 hours work?

Best paid lawyers - Tax Silks - expect £2million a year. So the guys who help avoid paying tax - sorry "avoidance" is illegal, those who can advise on the tax efficiencies, get the most money. Bedrock of society? Again another argument to be had.

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

As you suggest by implication, being a lawyer is not only a proper job, but also one of the most important there is.

I think he's suggesting exactly the opposite.

Read what he said - that law reform is not a matter for people like him, but for the lawyers. Sounds like he credits them with an important role to me.

Am I going to fast for anyone? Anyway I have had enough of trying to explain my views on this. I'll say it slowly one final time.

Do unto others as they do unto you.

I think I read that in a book somewhere.

I think your memory lets you down. There is, however, a book that says “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” (Matthew 7:12) and “...and do not do what you hate...” (Gospel of Thomas 6). Misquotation perchance?

[communistworkethic]

hmm "overpaid lawyers who can't get proper jobs" seemed pretty unequivocal.

[plodder]

I think your memory lets you down. There is, however, a book that says “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” (Matthew 7:12) and “...and do not do what you hate...” (Gospel of Thomas 6). Misquotation perchance?

Not at all.

It reads exactly as I quoted.

Mathew must have been a lawyer.

[TANGODANCER]

Hypothetically Mummy, if the victim hadn't reacted, what are the chances of a policeman being around, or anyone wanting to come forward as a witness? What happens then? Where is the justice in that? The slapper and his mate run off laughing and do the same thing again. The victim, as you said, feels humiliated and less than manly for it. That's human nature and few men can, as you so strongly put it about "our lot", turn the other cheek. That rule was laid down two thousand years or so ago and assumably there were fewer bored or pampered, work-shy louts about:
"You slap him and I'll draw a sketch" and we'll sell copies of it to our friends".

No, I admire your sense of decency and correct behaviour, but, as others have agreed, it just doesn't work like that. Even at my age (when the hardest thing would be catching the bastard) I would react with anger at the sheer idiocy of pillocks with nothing better to do than blow up their own egos by humiliating others. Pity they ever got rid of the cane in schools. If they hadn't, kids might have a little more respect for right and wrong.

[plodder]

Size 12 plimsoll and National Service.

That would sort out a big pile of the dross of today.

[Montreal Wanderer]

Am I going to fast for anyone? Anyway I have had enough of trying to explain my views on this. I'll say it slowly one final time.

Do unto others as they do unto you.

I think I read that in a book somewhere.

I think your memory lets you down. There is, however, a book that says “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” (Matthew 7:12) and “...and do not do what you hate...” (Gospel of Thomas 6). Misquotation perchance?

Plods, I'm afraid Mummy is right about the Golden Rule (see also Luke 6:31) - I think perhaps you are confusing it with the Old Testament notion of an eye for an eye, etc.(a judicial concept we have moved a little beyond in the last three thousand years - perhaps as some suggest too far). The Golden Rule has other variant forms such as "Do as you would be done by", etc.

You asked

Inverted snobbery= I don't know, perhaps Monty can help me out

Snobbery allows people to feel better than others by virtue of perceived superiority in social class, money, education, etc. Inverted snobbery is believing oneself better than others through lack of these same things. Either form of snobbery is at best stupid and at worst contemptible in my view.

Beyond this I have nothing to add to the debate - both people were equally wrong, though perhaps not in equal measure.

[plodder]

As ever Monty, thanks for your input.