Jump to content

A pack of hounds


Nobby
 Share

Recommended Posts

A pack of hounds

Feb 17 2007

By Rob Kennedy, The Evening Chronicle

 

http://images.icnetwork.co.uk/upl/icnewcastle/feb2007/2/1/D00C02A9-B921-E21E-4E1B3BB77E930378.jpg

 

Thugs who attacked an asylum seeker like a "pack of hounds" have been locked up for a total of 28 years.

 

Iranian asylum seeker Yasin Ahmed was cycling through a Newcastle park when six teenagers beat him to pulp and left him for dead.

 

The 45-year-old victim had every bone in his face broken during the attack, as well as suffering a fractured skull and four broken ribs, and was left fighting for life.

 

He also had to have all his teeth taken out and was left with blurred vision, hearing difficulties, insomnia, nightmares, flashbacks and panic attacks.

 

During the attack, Stephen McLeod, William Day, Gary Smith, Sean Smith and two youths kicked, stamped, punched and attacked Mr Ahmed with a bottle as he lay bleeding on the ground in Walker Park, Newcastle, in April last year.

 

At Newcastle Crown Court Judge Beatrice Bolton declared: "They behaved like pack animals. This was a horrendous attack and the victim is lucky to be alive".

 

Ringleader McLeod, 18, of Pinner Place, Newcastle, and Day, 19, of Elgin Gardens, Walker, were each sent to a young offenders' institution for six years after admitting causing grievous bodily harm with intent.

 

Gary Smith, 18, of Corby Gardens, Newcastle, and Sean Smith, 18, of Monkchester Road, Walker, also admitted GBH with intent and were locked up for five years each.

 

A 17-year-old and a 16-year-old, who cannot be named for legal reasons, were locked up for three years each.

 

The judge told them: "Each and every one of you behaved like a baying pack of hounds setting about a defenceless man while he was lying bleeding on the ground with his face literally smashed in.

 

"It was a dreadful and cowardly attack and I'm satisfied he was set upon for no reason other than the colour of his skin and the fact that he was an asylum seeker."

 

Stuart Graham, mitigating for Gary Smith, said: "He fully accepts he played his part. He accepts he was punching with fists but does not accept kicking."

 

Chris Mitford, mitigating for McLeod, said: "He had been drinking a lot".

 

Mark Styles, mitigating for Sean Smith, said: "He is thoroughly ashamed of himself. He comes from a close-knit family. It is the folly of huge binge-drinking."

 

Christopher Knox, for Day, said: "This young man is very immature. He is remorseful. He got caught up in something really dreadful."

 

The court heard how Mr Ahmed's life was saved only by the intervention of a brave passer-by who stopped the attack.

 

The woman, who was not named, received a commendation from Judge Bolton, who paid tribute to her bravery.

 

She said: "This lady saved his life. She showed enormous courage to go up to those kicking this defenceless man. She will be awarded £500 to reflect in some small way what she did.

 

"We are often told to stand to one side and phone the police, but what a tragedy it would be if we did not have women and men like this."

 

http://icnewcastle.icnetwork.co.uk/chroniclelive/eveningchronicle/tm_headline=a-pack-of-hounds%26method=full%26objectid=18636300%26siteid=50081-name_page.html

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest Snow_Bunny

Well they got off light didn't they? People like them make me sick. No doubt they will be out of prison sooner than expected as well. Prison sentences these days are like some sort of sick joke on society, they're far too lenient!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Quite. Those words get bandied round here regularly though without people complaining.

 

Mong is referring to Downs syndrome. Is it not worse to poke fun at people with disabilities than to poke fun at races (who can always remember that all men are equal)?

 

Morally, i'd say poking fun at a disability is worse than poking fun at a race.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Quite. Those words get bandied round here regularly though without people complaining.

 

Mong is referring to Downs syndrome. Is it not worse to poke fun at people with disabilities than to poke fun at races (who can always remember that all men are equal)?

 

Morally, i'd say poking fun at a disability is worse than poking fun at a race.

 

 

 

totally agree

Link to post
Share on other sites

Quite. Those words get bandied round here regularly though without people complaining.

 

Mong is referring to Downs syndrome. Is it not worse to poke fun at people with disabilities than to poke fun at races (who can always remember that all men are equal)?

 

Morally, i'd say poking fun at a disability is worse than poking fun at a race.

 

 

 

totally agree

 

Just highlighting how difficult it is to be morally consistent and how our reactions / outrage are out of proportion due to the failure of 'rule' based morality. 'Thou shalt not kill' etc.

 

If we are logical about our value systems then we should be 'outraged' and respond in line with the offense. Our outrage at these cunts at the top of the thread relates to the moral offence they caused.

 

My argument is that people on this and other boards use terminology that makes fun of or is discriminatory to disabled people and no one bats an eyelid. Use a term that people deem as 'racist' and you are a pariah.

 

I wonder if any of them can solve this apparent conundrum?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Fucking cunts deserved longer sentences to be honest, I hope they'll make nice bitches for the lifers.

 

There's no lifers in a YOI.

 

Not saying they didn't deserve longer, but six years is an exceptionally long term for a juvenile sentence, the longest I've seen has been 5 and that was considered unusual. Basically what I'm saying is this isn't a case of a judge being lenient or something like that, it's due to the system.

 

Those excuses are weak to the point of being an insult to people's intelligence, by the way. Those lads are scum, I hope they either see the error of their ways or get the shit kicked out of them on a daily basis, unfortunately I suspect neither is likely.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Quite. Those words get bandied round here regularly though without people complaining.

 

Mong is referring to Downs syndrome. Is it not worse to poke fun at people with disabilities than to poke fun at races (who can always remember that all men are equal)?

 

Morally, i'd say poking fun at a disability is worse than poking fun at a race.

 

 

 

totally agree

 

Just highlighting how difficult it is to be morally consistent and how our reactions / outrage are out of proportion due to the failure of 'rule' based morality. 'Thou shalt not kill' etc.

 

If we are logical about our value systems then we should be 'outraged' and respond in line with the offense. Our outrage at these cunts at the top of the thread relates to the moral offence they caused.

 

My argument is that people on this and other boards use terminology that makes fun of or is discriminatory to disabled people and no one bats an eyelid. Use a term that people deem as 'racist' and you are a pariah.

 

I wonder if any of them can solve this apparent conundrum?

 

Im outraged that they beat an innocent man close to death, i don't care where he is from although if their motive was because he is foreign then its even more fucked up.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Quite. Those words get bandied round here regularly though without people complaining.

 

Mong is referring to Downs syndrome. Is it not worse to poke fun at people with disabilities than to poke fun at races (who can always remember that all men are equal)?

 

Morally, i'd say poking fun at a disability is worse than poking fun at a race.

 

 

 

totally agree

 

Just highlighting how difficult it is to be morally consistent and how our reactions / outrage are out of proportion due to the failure of 'rule' based morality. 'Thou shalt not kill' etc.

 

If we are logical about our value systems then we should be 'outraged' and respond in line with the offense. Our outrage at these cunts at the top of the thread relates to the moral offence they caused.

 

My argument is that people on this and other boards use terminology that makes fun of or is discriminatory to disabled people and no one bats an eyelid. Use a term that people deem as 'racist' and you are a pariah.

 

I wonder if any of them can solve this apparent conundrum?

 

I for one don't use the term 'mong' in any sense to refer to someone with Down's Syndrome. I know that's where it comes from originally as a term of offence, but I personally don't even associate it with disabled people.

 

I like it as a word, cos of how it sounds, I think it's a great word to refer to someone stupid, which might be wrong because of where it came from, but it's certainly not how I would ever use it or even think about it.

 

If I was in a crowded room with someone and they said to me "check out the nigger", I'd know to look for a black person (hypothetical, since I'd rather have my teeth pulled than socialise with anyone that neanderthal), but if someone said "check out the mong", I'd start looking for someone acting the twat before it even occurred to me that they might be talking about a Down's sufferer. If they were, I think I'd take more offence to that than the nigger comment actually.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...