Absolute *** of our time Pt.MXXVI

[lcfcadam]

My next-door neighbours.

[davieG]

Merc

Two brothers who carried out a "ferocious" attack on a contract worker at a cemetery have each been jailed for 14 months.

Their 40-year-old victim was repeatedly punched and kicked in retaliation for upsetting the men's 15-year-old nephew, who was caught vandalising a fence at Gilroes cemetery, in Groby Road, Leicester.

The foreman suffered a broken nose, bruising, an eye injury and had three teeth knocked out in the attack, on September 7 last year.

He is still receiving costly dental treatment and suffers occasional pain, Leicester Crown Court was told.

Geremy Kirk Fleck (32) and Simon James Fleck (33) were identified and arrested following a police appeal in the Leicester Mercury.

The victim's employers, Mole Plant Hire and Groundwork Contractors, of Huncote, offered £1,000 for information – and the defendants' names were given.

Geremy Fleck, of Tournament Road, Glenfield, and Simon Fleck, of Hackett Road, New Parks, pleaded guilty to causing actual bodily harm.

Speaking after the attack, the victim told the Mercury he had feared for his life as he was beaten "to a pulp" while he lay defenceless on the ground.

Sentencing the pair, Judge Ebraham Mooncey said: "You both launched a ferocious attack.

"He was punched and kicked and was taken to Leicester Royal Infirmary.

"He suffered a lot of pain and distress, had to have time off work to get treatment and his life is forever changed.

"Both of you left the scene and through appeals in the media your names became known to the police."

The victim was working as foreman of a £4 million project to extend Gilroes cemetery. Jonathan Cox, prosecuting, said he caught the defendants' nephew damaging boundary fencing at the site and told him to stop.

The teenager initially apologised but then said: "I'm going to get my uncle. You can't do anything, you can't touch me."

Mr Cox said about an hour later he returned with defendants "as muscle" and to "mete out punishment".

When the boy pointed out the victim, Simon Fleck knocked him to the ground.

Mr Cox said: "He curled up into a ball to protect himself from a flurry of blows by both defendants. Simon Fleck in particular was punching, mainly to his head and kicking him to his upper body on the ground.

"Geremy joined in punching him to the face and head."

One of the uncles told the injured foreman: "If you touch my nephew again, you'll be dead."

The defendants, after arrest, denied any involvement.

The boy – who threw "a couple of punches" – is not being prosecuted.

Mr Cox said it was not accepted the victim had earlier physically assaulted the defendants' nephew, as the defendants had later suggested.

In mitigation, the court heard that the brothers acted "out of character" and neither had been in trouble for many years.

Matthew Smith, for Geremy Fleck, a father-of-three, said: "There was a complaint by his nephew of mistreatment by those on the site."

Justine Robinson, for Simon Fleck, said: "He's normally a positive member of society, going out of his way to assist others."

City Mayor Peter Soulsby said: "This was a vicious and senseless attack and it is reassuring that the culprits have been sentenced. Nobody should fear violence of this nature as they do their job."

[MooseBreath]

Good to get another pair of pikey scum off the streets, at least for a while. Hopefully the nephew will soon follow.

[flowwolf]

I don't put benefits claimers in the same category as murderers and rapists.

Thing is how much of that money is on rent?

We get this debate over and over again though.

At the end of the day what do you want to do someone who

a) dosn't want to work

b) wants to have lots of kids

I would wager that there are very few people like that though.

I want them to be made to work or no benefits and for every child beyond two I want them sterilising . But most of all I want these low life scrounging scum to stop living of my back.

[ADK]

How do you "make someone work" though?

I feel like so long as benefits cannot afford a luxury lifestyle then there is little issue with it.

All these proposed measures would end up costing the taxpayer more money than they currently pay.

[Rincewind]

What would you want done to those who took an apprenticeship at the age of 16, were married 18-20, had a good job, 3 kids then at age 25 made redundant and unable to find employment. Too late for sterilization, so would you suggest euthanasia for one of the children as the couple were over the limit? Also what would you say about the couple who may have lost their children in an accident?

You have not really thought this through have you?

Just because a person is unemployed does not make them scum. You are making sweeping generalizations which is common among certain kind of people. I urge you not to fall into that trap. Open your eyes and think before you post.

If there are not enough jobs to go round you cannot 'make somebody work' It is a two way thing. The employer cannot be 'made to employ someone' which is what would be needed.

Edited 30 October 2012 by Nightguard

[MooseBreath]

Just let them die out then. You'd be amazed how quickly people would find the means to survive when they can no longer rely on handouts.

[Guest MattP]

What would you want done to those who took an apprenticeship at the age of 16, were married 18-20, had a good job, 3 kids then at age 25 made redundant and unable to find employment. Too late for sterilization, so would you suggest euthanasia for one of the children as the couple were over the limit? Also what would you say about the couple who may have lost their children in an accident?

You have not really thought this through have you?

Just because a person is unemployed does not make them scum. You are making sweeping generalizations which is common among certain kind of people. I urge you not to fall into that trap. Open your eyes and think before you post.

If there are not enough jobs to go round you cannot 'make somebody work' It is a two way thing. The employer cannot be 'made to employ someone' which is what would be needed.

I don't think anyone on here has ever criticised people for having children whilst they have been in long term employment and would be happy to help them if they fell foul of redundancy and were genuinely trying to find work.

The ones we want sorting out are the ones see outside the job centre on New Walk with a can of special brew or the ones in weatherspoons at 10am.

[Captain...]

I want them to be made to work or no benefits and for every child beyond two I want them sterilising . But most of all I want these low life scrounging scum to stop living of my back.

So they get benefits for the third child if they are in work? That seems a bit backwards, I don't disagree with benefits only being for the first 2 children, the government are actually discussing that now, the problem is as Nightguard said, you risk putting kids into poverty by not supporting them when the main bread winner loses their job.

Just let them die out then. You'd be amazed how quickly people would find the means to survive when they can no longer rely on handouts.

I bet that they would only find legal means too...

[Rincewind]

I want them to be made to work or no benefits and for every child beyond two I want them sterilising . But most of all I want these low life scrounging scum to stop living of my back.

This is what I was referring to. The assumption that anyone that is unemployed is scum.

[Guest MattP]

This is what I was referring to. The assumption that anyone that is unemployed is scum.

He didn't say that at all, he said scroungers, he didn't mention the unemployed as a whole.

[MooseBreath]

I bet that they would only find legal means too...

Probably not. They'd probably just steal the money from other people, so ultimately nothing would change, except we'd get to throw a few of them in jail from time to time.

[ADK]

Of course it costs £47,000 per year to keep someone in jail thus you end up paying far more than you already do. Makes sense. Oh and being robbed is slighly more unpleasant than paying tax.

[Guest MattP]

Of course it costs £47,000 per year to keep someone in jail thus you end up paying far more than you already do. Makes sense. Oh and being robbed is slighly more unpleasant than paying tax.

You can't decide what people you put in jail on how much it costs, would have a complete breakdown in society.

[Nick]

You can't decide what people you put in jail on how much it costs, would have a complete breakdown in society.

Not really - paying somebody 30K a year to work with an offender 1:1 7am till 7pm and have them 'curfewed' for the rest of the time is more likely to grant enough self and community efficacy to enable desistance from crime (for offenders not considered a risk of serious harm)

Prison's not working and its expensive - there are other ways to punish and restrict liberty without it resulting in the complete breakdown of society!

[MooseBreath]

Yeah, give all would be criminals enough tax payer money so that they don't need to commit crime. Perfect.

[ADK]

You can't decide what people you put in jail on how much it costs, would have a complete breakdown in society.

That wasn't the point i was trying to make, i was thinking in the context of dealing with so called "scroungers". To be honest i don't feel like i can hold an opinion either way, i know several people who have been on benefits or are on benefits. None of them fit the typical right wing newspaper depiction. Then again i don't make a big attempt to mingle with chavs so i have probably not met these sorts. I do feel that not having a job should never be considered in the same bracket as crime. I have no issue with paying a subsistance living allowance to those who don't work.

[ADK]

Yeah, give all would be criminals enough tax payer money so that they don't need to commit crime. Perfect.

The important part of that is "need". People will commit crime if they feel they need to do so to survive. It is also retarded to send people to prison at a cost of £47,000 per year when they would have not committed crime for £2000 a year.

[Webbo]

The important part of that is "need". People will commit crime if they feel they need to do so to survive. It is also retarded to send people to prison at a cost of £47,000 per year when they would have not committed crime for £2000 a year.

I rather starve than steal so that's not true. Also not all criminals are in need.

[Rincewind]

If a mother has no money coming in and needs to feed her baby I would bet that shoplifting crosses her mind wherethore if she had an income then the odds are she would not. If you have not been in the situation then it is easy to say you would not do it. Many would not but why encourage the 'maybes'?

Anyway the money does not come out of your pocket. A certain amount is put aside from the National income to pay for it. It comes from a different pot to taxes.

[MooseBreath]

Anyway the money does not come out of your pocket. A certain amount is put aside from the National income to pay for it. It comes from a different pot to taxes.

What is "the National income"?

[Nick]

Yeah, give all would be criminals enough tax payer money so that they don't need to commit crime. Perfect.

Well, obviously your retort has absolutely no bearing on anything I wrote, (especially as we indirectly invest more tax money in prisons which is pretty much the same thing) however, you have evoked an interesting ideological argument. There is a theory (which of course is unworkable) that if you give an acquisitive offender 30K and assist them in investing it in themselves they won't need to offend anymore - if you like, it balances out the difference in life opportunities in comparison to those who don't offend, that the offender either didn't have or didn't take up (Give a man a fish or give a man a fishing rod and all that....) and is far cheaper than incarceration and the cost of future offences and associated criminal justice services.

[Captain...]

I rather starve than steal so that's not true. Also not all criminals are in need.

But would you let your family starve or steal for them?

This is all in reaction to one comment about how resourceful people are if they need to be to survive, and that if we took away benefits people would find a way to survive, but that may not always be legal. Not everyone commits crime through necessity, nor is everyone in need going to steal to survive, but if you have a loved one that is starving and needs food you would do all you could to provide for them.

To be honest that is how we need to start viewing "dole scum" and "scroungers" as our family our neighbours our friends, people we would gladly help, that is how we function as a society as a species.

We help those that can't help themselves, it is not just those that earn lots of money that are doing everything they can to avoid paying tax, it is those that are taking advantage of that help.

[Captain...]

Well, obviously your retort has absolutely no bearing on anything I wrote, (especially as we indirectly invest more tax money in prisons which is pretty much the same thing) however, you have evoked an interesting ideological argument. There is a theory (which of course is unworkable) that if you give an acquisitive offender 30K and assist them in investing it in themselves they won't need to offend anymore - if you like, it balances out the difference in life opportunities in comparison to those who don't offend, that the offender either didn't have or didn't take up (Give a man a fish or give a man a fishing rod and all that....) and is far cheaper than incarceration and the cost of future offences and associated criminal justice services.

Make that a potential offender then we might have a deal, invest in people before them become criminals not after.

[Nick]

Make that a potential offender then we might have a deal, invest in people before them become criminals not after.

Hence the 'unworkability' it's catch 22 - it's financially unviable if linked to a prevent agenda.