The precedent is unset

I suppose we shouldn’t be surprised. This was pointed out by the lovely JuliaM in the comments on yesterday’s post.


And for this, he was sentenced to :

He was given a six-month conditional discharge and ordered to pay £2,500.

A… er… what? Okay. They’re only dogs. Whatever. This judge took a different view though:


Now, the security guard accidentally allowed the death of 1 guard dog.

The copper accidentally allowed the death of 2 police dogs – you know – the ones that are trained and kept at considerable cost to the public.

To be clear though, I don’t think either the copper or the security guard should have been sent to prison for this, but since the security guard was, justice dictates that the copper should as well.

So, it’s a trivial example, but it certainly looks like one rule for the little people and another for plod.



About Al Jahom
Anti-social malcontent, misanthrope and miserable git.

2 Responses to The precedent is unset

  1. Unless you are going to have “tick the boxes, robot judges”, then you are going to get different results from different people (judges). Even if on the face of it the cases seem similar, or even, as in this instance, one more deserving of punishment than the other.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: