We all have times in our lives when we really want to say what we think – however lewd, crude or inappropriate that may be.
But I don`t think a court of law should be a place where we need to apply the brakes.
Which is why I whole-heartedly agree with a magistrate who branded two teenagers `absolute scum' after they desecrated items at Blackburn Cathedral.
The two 16 year-old boys wrote racist and sexually abusive graffiti in prayer books including `I will kill all Jews, as well as making lurid comments about the vicar. Pages were also torn out of prayer books and a cross was bent out of shape. Their mindless rampage caused over £3,000 worth of damage.
So when the magistrate, Austin Molloy, who was chairman of the Blackburn bench, called them `absolute scum', he was actually reacting quite mildly. Scum is too good a word for them – even though they were so unremittingly stupid that they got caught out by autographing their work in the visitors book.
Unsurprisingly the legal advisor or court clerk reprimanded the magistrate for his choice language. As did the mother of one of the boys.
Let`s set aside for a moment the fact that the clerk shouldn`t have undermined the magistrate in open court and should have invited them to retire instead to discuss what had been said.
But the brutal fact is that these two boys did behave like scum – or worse. Theirs were the actions of a duo of thugs whose gratuitous and wanton exploits showed total contempt for the sanctity of religion and common decency.
And if the magistrate wants to express his disgust for their pointless behavior in language the defendants would understand – given the limitations of their own vocabulary – then why should he be handcuffed by political correctness. As a lawyer who has spent the past 30 years in magistrates courts, it certainly wouldn`t have bothered me.
It`s bad enough that in passing sentence Mr Molloy was manacled by the limitations of his magisterial powers. He rightly suggested in court that had he the authority, he`d make the culprits explain themselves in front of the Sunday congregation.
A noble idea. But in my mind a quick dose of the birch would ram the message home far more swiftly and eloquently.
Hoodlums like this have no respect for society or authority, while our judiciary simply has no teeth.
It`s a sad indictment of our society that one of the boy`s mothers was actually offended by the choice use of the word `scum`. Surely any parent should be hanging their head in shame if their children were found to be behaving in such a disgusting way – and wondering how they got it so badly wrong. How ironic that instead they subvert the old adage about sticks and stones.
Mr Molloy should be congratulated not criticised for putting into words what decent people think.
These boys are total scum. And if that offends anyone, vermin will do.
Lord Triesman's own goal
What a spectacular own goal coming from a man who was supposed to understand the rules of the game.
But while there is no doubt that shamed ex-FA chairman Lord Triesman behaved like an old fool, why should his pillow talk be printed by a national newspaper who then self-righteously proclaim that his actions have forfeited hopes of hosting the World Cup.
I despise such utter hypocrisy when areas of the national press so obviously practice self-selecting censorship, choosing when to expose a story and when to keep it under wraps.
I`m not decrying the value of ‘kiss and tell’ when public figures are caught in compromising situations. However, when Lord Triesman alleged that Spain and Russia might bribe the refs, that was his post-coital conjecture to his trusted aide, Melissa Jacobs.
So thank you to the sanctimonious Sunday paper who blew the lid on this one. It is your bean-spilling and not Lord Triesman who have torpedoed our world cup prospects in 2018. Wonder who the real fool is here ?
Get your dog chipped, but will rescue centres care?
When Liz Hiorns` 11 year-old Jack Russell went missing she clung to the belief that it would be found because her dog, Penny, had been chipped with an identitiy number.
So when the dog was handed into a rescue centre, it would have been the easiest thing in the world for them to have been reunited. Instead the dog was sold and only thanks to a potential £4,000 High Court action, did Penny`s new owners agree to hand her back.
As a dog lover I deplore the conduct of the rescue centre in prioritising a quick buck over returning the dog to its rightful home.
What is the point of the proposed legislation for identifying dogs if rescue centres behave in this lamentable way? They exist to save dogs, not to cause their owners unnecessary heartache.
Does the fun really begin at 50?
A new study proclaimed this week that whilst life begins at 40, the fun really starts at 50.
Which is a bit strange since all the fiftysomethings I know have been pole axed by disease, divorce, debt or even death.
In my case however, my 50th birthday present was delivered personally to my office by six burly coppers who arrested me just before my party.
Thankfully this was one present I was happy to return after my innocence was proven and no charges were ever brought.
The scars, however, still linger to this day. So if that`s fun at 50 you can keep it, thank you very much.
Tweet
Comments
Login or Register to comment
Do you by any chance use the nom de plume Zingo the moon ?
Well said that man!
Heaven forbid that anyone be allowed to hurt the feelings of these youngsters. Diddums.
The Court Clerk's comments and the subsequent hoo-har only show how unfeeling and indifferent the system really is to the harm that thugs and scum are causing to ordinary people. It is so quick to shield and defend the scum. Even one of the fathers is in agreement with the magistrate, and you can't get much more emotionally involved in the affair than that. The Court Clerk and her ilk can go to hell.
Good comments Mr Freeman but how do you describe a guy who wipes out a persons wife while drunk at the wheel and you get him off on a technicality
Proper Sentences, perhaps you would be kind enough to tell us what case you are referring to as I am not sure it exists..
Mr Freeman, for someone who has made millions by getting criminals off at court, you are hardly one to criticise.
You have seen many (rich) people walk out of court with their freedom and no doubt their driving license, knowing damn well that they are guilty of the offence for which they were charged, and it is all down to you.
Praise from Caesar?
An honest question for Nick... If the "scum" were son's of extremely rich folk, would you defend them for the right money?
Nice to see that a perfectly reasonble qustion cant be asked in the opinion section as well as the main stories. Nick - your letting us down
"Mr Freeman, for someone who has made millions by getting criminals off at court, you are hardly one to criticise."
Thats a nice contradictory sentence, if he gets them off how are they criminals.
Thats a nice contradictory sentence, if he gets them off how are they criminals
lovinthebanter, Manchester
Well, how do you feel about those guys who got off with being deported for alleged terrorist offences that could not be proven?
What they did that day was totally disrespectful, but that doesn't mean they are absolute scum or vermin to be written off. The judge had no right to label them as such. Very unprofessional and not the kind of language one should be using in a court.
Twice now. Where is my other comment on this actual piece of writing MEN? WIll you notpublish because it calls the integrity of this media into question?
Realworld, you are just peddling the same old tired arguments. It is a solicitor's duty to defend their clients. Nick Freeman is just good at his job and is paid a lot to do it. Those people choosing to use the message board to post negative comments about him are just jealous. He doesn't hold a gun to the Court's head and force it to acquit his clients. Why not focus on the real issues in this article?
Taking your argument to its conclusion, no person accused of an offence should be entitled to a solicitor and the state should just be left to do what ever it pleases with them without them having a proper opportunity to defend themselves. Even the so-called "scum" who committed these offences have a right to a lawyer. If you don't like it, go and live in a totalitarian state.
Thats a nice contradictory sentence, if he gets them off how are they criminals
lovinthebanter, Manchester
Well, how do you feel about those guys who got off with being deported for alleged terrorist offences that could not be proven?"
I believe that they are not criminals, however you don't have to be a criminal to be a danger to society especially if there is evidence to show you are.
I wouldn't have thought so... it's probably because most of us - including the MEN 'mods' - think you are an ****.
One rule for them, and a different set of rules for the chav, yob, scum, etc.
It's great all these rich fat-cats calling people names, and all those working class heroes of the internet dropping **it from a great height on the brothers in arms.
You can sort of tell when the posters and bored and lazy lgo's or police officers - who are desperate to call everyone names but can't if there are witnesses about!
So ere you all are - embarrassing you colleagues who are trying to do the job properly.
In response to your comments about dog microchipping, I feel that I must stick up for the rescue centre here as I have worked in many. All animals that arrive as strays in rescue centres are scanned for microchips as soon as they arrive; sometimes the chip does not show up, as even though they have been chipped the chip can get lost or just not read properly. Also, even if they are detected, if the correct paper work has not been sent by the owner or vet who chipped it then it is impossible to get an address for the owner, people also sometimes do not change their details if they move.
All rescue centres are required by law to keep the animal for 7 days before they can put them up for rehoming so that the owners can collect them; if after that 7 days there has been no contact from the owners trying to find their animal then they can be put up for adoption.
Hoodlums? what ever happened to the YOB's?
[quote name=Orlando Caravaggio]One rule for them, and a different set of rules for the chav, yob, scum, etc.
It's great all these rich fat-cats calling people names, and all those working class heroes of the internet dropping **it from a great height on the brothers in arms.
You can sort of tell when the posters and bored and lazy lgo's or police officers - who are desperate to call everyone names but can't if there are witnesses about!
So ere you all are - embarrassing you colleagues who are trying to do the job properly.[/quote]
What on earth is that comment about?
I totally agree that they are the scum of the earth, but is this not the pot calling the kettle black? If they were the sons of a Premiership footballer would Nick Freeman still be of the same opinion or would he be looking for every undotted I or uncrossed T to get them off on a technicality?
when does the pope give out sainthoods?
I think if you genuinely believe what you have written, then you need to have a word with the people censoring the posts on this site. Anything which might even remotely perceived as criticising minorities never makes it onto the boards, and often the only posts allowed are the left of centre ones.
A blog site which too heavily censors posts quickly loses support for it's one sided opinions, this is happening to the MEN site.
Of course this will never make it onto the boards because it criticises the very people with the heavy hands and the blue pencil.
I rarely get censored.On the odd occassion Ive been grateful.On many occassions Ive wished I had been censored!Not for quite a while though.Not sure if that means Im more confident or I write less crap.If I had no trust in moderaters at all Id stop posting.I worried more when I used to write to Postbag.The editing could sometimes distort your point.Best to keep it short and sweet on there to avoid editing.I was 'mortified' many times.
I know what you mean Angie, Ive said a lot of stupid, sometimes nasty things here and regretted it straight away afterwards. Im glad when the mods have felt the ned to censor
Ignoramus.I have extremes of mood.Posting on forums has allowed me to see it in all its glory.With the old system old posts were often dragged back up and I was often surprised by how sensible,or not,I could be.Theres a grown up ,responsible person in there- sometimes.So Ill continue to refuse the medication!Theres a saying'If only we could see ourselves as others see us.' For me,regular contributions to forums make that possible and save the cost of therapy.