There is some raging debate on the youngster Richard Woolard charged over his reckless endangerment of the public by dropping a fire extinguisher from Millbank Tower on the day of the first Student protests.
A custodial sentence of 32 months was given to him over the offence.
Outcries have come out from this about the vastly disproportionate differences on sentences in the judicial system. It seems to most that young Master Wollard has been made an example of to others who consider protesting. While that in itself is not a bad thing - to discourage violent outbursts at mostly peaceful protests- one has to think about the other protesters who been killed, injured or maimed by Police Officers who have no reprisals.
Others have remarked about the sentences given for drink driving, MP's jailed over fraud/drink driving etc and even paedophiles. I have to agree, a man who runs over and kills a child with no licence or insurance was jailed for 9 months while this young man gets 32 months? I think it's time for judges around the country to have a long hard look at how they allocate jail time in accordance with the offence and scenario.
On topic, Woolard deserved a custodial sentence; 6 months + fine would have been acceptable. He's been made an example of however with 32 months whilst people who actually do maim, murder or kill other get lenient sentences. Proportionate sentences for all crimes please! All sentences should send a message, "Break the law and be prepared to be punished!" Not just a select few.
This is the video showing how the majority of students reacted to his stupid act, now tell me, do all protesting students need to be tarred with the same brush by the media?
On the score of the 'Fees protests'.
Most people will leave Uni, get jobs and contribute back into a system that helped them get to where they are. As surprising as it sounds not all people aspiring to be Uni students are born with silver spoons in their mouths, some have genuinely disabled parents and end up being part-time carers to them whilst also trying to fund an education. Some live in impoverished areas with the talent to enrich their lives and others..yet cannot due to lack of work prospects for their parents and their selves. And as with all benefits, you get the loafers and the spongers.
The aid with tuition fees was bought in to help those who are financially challenged to fund a decent education. I'm guessing most would rather the poor be uneducated and do the jobs 'privileged' people take for granted and spit upon, instead of aspiring to become teachers, scientists and perhaps a decent Politian or two.
Before it's said, I'm a taxpayer and I paid for my education via work with a slight contribution from a maintenance grant. I worked from the age of 14 and have ever since.