Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

This case will get dropped - any takers?

134 views
Skip to first unread message

Nasti Chestikov

unread,
Apr 6, 2022, 4:23:56 PM4/6/22
to
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-61009801

"A man has admitted vandalising the memorial to the 22 people killed in the Manchester Arena bombing"

However, he goes by the name Anwar Hosseni.

So it'll get dropped.

You read it here first.

Roger Hayter

unread,
Apr 6, 2022, 5:43:42 PM4/6/22
to
On 6 Apr 2022 at 16:59:17 BST, "Nasti Chestikov" <nasti.c...@gmail.com>
wrote:
How can the case be "dropped" when he has aleady pleaded guilty and been sent
by the magistrate to the Crown Court for sentencing? And, despite what appears
on dark corners of the Internet like Q-anon, Trump and previously on Tommy
Roninson's twitter feed, the courts in the UK are *not* noted for leniency to
Muslims committing racist offences. Indeed, they are noted for statistically
being more severe on non-white defendants.



So I'll bet a 100GBP he is sentenced - any takers?


--

Roger Hayter

Nasti Chestikov

unread,
Apr 8, 2022, 12:16:13 AM4/8/22
to
I was basing my assertions on the following (both from the BBC website):

25 May 2013

A Woking teenager has been charged in connection with comments placed on a social media website following the murder of British soldier Lee Rigby in Woolwich.

Mohammed Mazar, 19, of Balmoral Drive, has been charged with an offence of improper use of public electronic communications network under section 127 of the Communications Act 2003.

Drummer Rigby, 25, was brutally attacked and killed by two men in south east London on Wednesday.

Neighbourhood Superintendent Matt Goodridge said: “Surrey Police will not tolerate language used in a public place, including on social media websites, which causes harassment, alarm or distress.


11 June 2013

A 19-year-old man accused of making comments on a social media website following the murder of Drummer Lee Rigby has had his court case discontinued.

Mohammed Mazar, of Woking, Surrey, was charged with improper use of the public electronic communications network under section 127 of the Communications Act 2003.

He was on the list to appear at Guildford magistrates court but a prosecutor said a letter informing Mazar that the case was to be discontinued had been sent earlier.

notya...@gmail.com

unread,
Apr 8, 2022, 12:18:17 AM4/8/22
to
On Wednesday, 6 April 2022 at 22:43:42 UTC+1, Roger Hayter wrote:
Indeed it is going to Crown Court, and given the degree of abhorrence in Manchester I expect the sentence will be at deterrent level.

https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/mark-smith-cenotaph-manchester-court-18125174

Roger Hayter

unread,
Apr 8, 2022, 3:53:41 AM4/8/22
to
On 7 Apr 2022 at 16:15:24 BST, "Nasti Chestikov" <nasti.c...@gmail.com>
So 9 years ago a Muslim said something disrespectful on social media which the
CPS were going to prosecute as an offensive communication but they decided
before the hearing it didn't provably amount to a crime; therefore, you
conclude that all Muslims who clearly commit crimes are likely to be let off?

I don't suppose this was actually the first time a case has ever been dropped,
nor do think this is confined to any particular race or religion of defendant.

--
Roger Hayter

Dr Dave

unread,
Apr 8, 2022, 3:58:40 AM4/8/22
to
The two cases seem quite different and at different stages to boot. The publicly available evidence is different too. You perhaps need to consider the differences in making predictions based on objective or racist perspectives as others here have done.

Spike

unread,
Apr 8, 2022, 4:25:07 AM4/8/22
to
On 06/04/2022 21:43, Roger Hayter wrote:

> ...the courts in the UK are *not* noted for leniency to
> Muslims committing racist offences. Indeed, they are noted for statistically
> being more severe on non-white defendants.

Some data on that claim might be interesting to read. Do you have a cite?

--
Spike

Brian

unread,
Apr 8, 2022, 5:11:45 AM4/8/22
to
Going by events in Bately *( and a couple of other, less well publicised
cases), the authorities certainly seem less enthusiastic about pursuing
cases against certain groups.

There have been a few cases reported of celebrities etc receiving threats
etc recently and the culprits being caught. No one has been arrested over
the threats in Bately and the teacher hasn’t been able return to his home
or work.

Attacks on Jews, especially in London, go unsolved.

Roger Hayter

unread,
Apr 8, 2022, 7:24:19 AM4/8/22
to
Government figures (and includes a couple of other government references).
Much more is available but that was the best illustration of a well-known fact
I could come up with in 30 seconds;

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/479874/analysis-of-ethnicity-and-custodial-sentences.pdf


--
Roger Hayter

JNugent

unread,
Apr 8, 2022, 2:25:49 PM4/8/22
to
Hmmm...

Perhaps the evidence you meant to adduce does exist somewhere, but it's
not at the source you cited.

QUOTE:

Descriptive statistics for convicted male and female offenders by
ethnicity, 2011, England and Wales.
[ ... ]
Violence (a bit too general, wouldn't you agree?)
Sexual
Burglary
Robbery
Theft/handling stolen goods
Fraud and forgery
Criminal damage
Drug offences
Other indictable (a bit too general, wouldn't you agree?)
Indictable motoring
Summary offences (a bit too general, wouldn't you agree?)
Summary motoring
ENDQUOTE

Spike

unread,
Apr 9, 2022, 12:09:06 PM4/9/22
to
Yes, Hayter's supporting data concerning his claim about "...Muslims
committing racist offences...are noted for statistically being more
severe on non-white defendants." fails on all counts.


--
Spike

Nasti Chestikov

unread,
May 9, 2022, 11:54:34 AM5/9/22
to
Well surprise surprise

https://www.thelawpages.com/court-hearings-lists/crown-court-daily/40/lists/2022-05-04

has no listing for this charge.

Presumably dropped as per my original post?

Jon Ribbens

unread,
May 9, 2022, 12:01:17 PM5/9/22
to
On 2022-05-09, Nasti Chestikov <nasti.c...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Well surprise surprise
>
> https://www.thelawpages.com/court-hearings-lists/crown-court-daily/40/lists/2022-05-04
>
> has no listing for this charge.
>
> Presumably dropped as per my original post?

That's an extremely unsafe assumption, not least because according to
the news reports he has already pleaded guilty so I'm not even sure
it's *possible* for the case to be "dropped" as per your prediction.
It's much more likely the hearing was simply bumped to another date
- the courts are extremely backlogged at the moment so this is happening
a lot I believe.

Nasti Chestikov

unread,
May 9, 2022, 4:29:18 PM5/9/22
to
So how do I find out when the miscreant faces justice?

Jon Ribbens

unread,
May 9, 2022, 6:02:20 PM5/9/22
to
I'm not sure you can. Keep watching the listings page each day I suppose.
Or telephone the court and ask (if they answer the phone).

Mark Goodge

unread,
May 10, 2022, 7:28:37 AM5/10/22
to
You can't, not easily. Given that he's already pleaded guilty, a full
trial won't be necessary so he will be brought in for sentencing
whenever there's a suitable opportunity. This could be any time from
days to weeks, or even months.

Mark

Nasti Chestikov

unread,
May 10, 2022, 8:29:46 PM5/10/22
to
On Tuesday, 10 May 2022 at 12:28:37 UTC+1, Mark Goodge wrote:

> You can't, not easily. Given that he's already pleaded guilty, a full
> trial won't be necessary so he will be brought in for sentencing
> whenever there's a suitable opportunity. This could be any time from
> days to weeks, or even months.
>
> Mark

Or never?

Mark Goodge

unread,
May 11, 2022, 12:45:07 PM5/11/22
to
>Or never?

The only way it could be never is if he dies in between pleading guilty
and being sentenced.

Mak

Nasti Chestikov

unread,
May 15, 2022, 1:01:30 PM5/15/22
to
On Wednesday, 11 May 2022 at 17:45:07 UTC+1, Mark Goodge wrote:
>
> The only way it could be never is if he dies in between pleading guilty
> and being sentenced.
>
> Mak

I've emailed the court directly (according to thelawpages they are obliged to provide info to ensure complete transparency in our judicial system).

We'll see, I doubt they'll roll over quite as easily as that.

I'll keep you all updated.

David McNeish

unread,
May 15, 2022, 2:39:53 PM5/15/22
to
Unless you actually want to be in the public galleries, why not just wait for the news coverage of the sentencing?

Mark Goodge

unread,
May 15, 2022, 4:40:13 PM5/15/22
to
Because sentencing is often not newsworthy enough to get reported,
particularly if the culprit has pleaded guilty.

Mark

Roland Perry

unread,
May 16, 2022, 7:31:11 AM5/16/22
to
In message <qtl28hpcmtt0a989r...@4ax.com>, at 20:44:09 on
Sun, 15 May 2022, Mark Goodge <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>
remarked:
>On Sun, 15 May 2022 10:15:20 -0700 (PDT), David McNeish
><davi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Sunday, 15 May 2022 at 18:01:30 UTC+1, nasti.c...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, 11 May 2022 at 17:45:07 UTC+1, Mark Goodge wrote:
>>> >
>>> > The only way it could be never is if he dies in between pleading guilty
>>> > and being sentenced.
>>> >
>>> I've emailed the court directly (according to thelawpages they are
>>>obliged to provide info to ensure complete transparency in our
>>>judicial system).
>>>
>>> We'll see, I doubt they'll roll over quite as easily as that.
>>>
>>> I'll keep you all updated.
>>
>>Unless you actually want to be in the public galleries, why not just wait
>>for the news coverage of the sentencing?
>
>Because sentencing is often not newsworthy enough to get reported,
>particularly if the culprit has pleaded guilty.

That's right. I've waited in vain several times for news reporting of
outcomes, and especially in the regions it's very thin on the ground.
--
Roland Perry

Nasti Chestikov

unread,
May 16, 2022, 11:21:51 AM5/16/22
to
On Monday, 16 May 2022 at 12:31:11 UTC+1, Roland Perry wrote:

> That's right. I've waited in vain several times for news reporting of
> outcomes, and especially in the regions it's very thin on the ground.
> --
> Roland Perry

Ok, I am surprised at the speed at which the Court turned this request around; June 14th is D-Day for the miscreant.

Unless the can gets kicked down the road again.

Nasti Chestikov

unread,
Jun 15, 2022, 12:45:45 PM6/15/22
to
So the plot thickens.......no case listed for 14th June.

I have emailed the Court.

Anyone smell something fishy?

Mark Goodge

unread,
Jun 15, 2022, 1:51:37 PM6/15/22
to
There's nothing fishy about the justice department's chronic lack of funding.
You said yourself you were surprised at how soon it had been scheduled. There's
nothing at all surprising about discovering that it was over optimistic.

Mark

Nasti Chestikov

unread,
Jun 17, 2022, 4:06:53 PM6/17/22
to
On Wednesday, 15 June 2022 at 18:51:37 UTC+1, Mark Goodge wrote:

> There's nothing fishy about the justice department's chronic lack of funding.
> You said yourself you were surprised at how soon it had been scheduled. There's
> nothing at all surprising about discovering that it was over optimistic.
>
> Mark

22 June apparently is the new date, I told them that they're not going to kick this can down the road until everyone forgets about it.

Let's see if he ever gets convicted.

Anyone fancy a wager? Let's say my £10k he walks against your £10k that he faces a trial?

Come on guys, you must have £10k that has a 100% belief in the UK legal system?

Mark Goodge

unread,
Jun 17, 2022, 4:17:21 PM6/17/22
to
On Fri, 17 Jun 2022 09:42:26 -0700 (PDT), Nasti Chestikov
<nasti.c...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Wednesday, 15 June 2022 at 18:51:37 UTC+1, Mark Goodge wrote:
>
>> There's nothing fishy about the justice department's chronic lack of funding.
>> You said yourself you were surprised at how soon it had been scheduled. There's
>> nothing at all surprising about discovering that it was over optimistic.
>>
>> Mark
>
>22 June apparently is the new date, I told them that they're not going to kick
>this can down the road until everyone forgets about it.

I'm sure they're quaking in their boots.

>Let's see if he ever gets convicted.
>
>Anyone fancy a wager? Let's say my £10k he walks against your £10k that
>he faces a trial?

You're on. My working email address is ma...@good-stuff.co.uk, and my postal
address is 12 Mansion Gardens, Evesham WR11 1BX. I look forward to receiving
your authenticated acceptance of the wager as soon as possible.

>Come on guys, you must have £10k that has a 100% belief in the UK legal system?

Not 100%, but odds of something like 100/1 are too good to turn down.

Mark

GB

unread,
Jun 17, 2022, 9:57:03 PM6/17/22
to
On 17/06/2022 21:17, Mark Goodge wrote:
> On Fri, 17 Jun 2022 09:42:26 -0700 (PDT), Nasti Chestikov
> <nasti.c...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Wednesday, 15 June 2022 at 18:51:37 UTC+1, Mark Goodge wrote:
>>
>>> There's nothing fishy about the justice department's chronic lack of funding.
>>> You said yourself you were surprised at how soon it had been scheduled. There's
>>> nothing at all surprising about discovering that it was over optimistic.
>>>
>>> Mark
>>
>> 22 June apparently is the new date, I told them that they're not going to kick
>> this can down the road until everyone forgets about it.
>
> I'm sure they're quaking in their boots.
>
>> Let's see if he ever gets convicted.
>>
>> Anyone fancy a wager? Let's say my £10k he walks against your £10k that
>> he faces a trial?
>
> You're on. My working email address is ma...@good-stuff.co.uk, and my postal
> address is 12 Mansion Gardens, Evesham WR11 1BX. I look forward to receiving
> your authenticated acceptance of the wager as soon as possible.
>
>> Come on guys, you must have £10k that has a 100% belief in the UK legal system?
>
> Not 100%, but odds of something like 100/1 are too good to turn down.
>
> Mark

The two of you will need a stakeholder, and I'm happy to oblige.


Nasti Chestikov

unread,
Jun 21, 2022, 5:38:23 PM6/21/22
to
I am withdrawing my offer.

Many thanks for your interest.

GB

unread,
Jun 22, 2022, 10:35:34 AM6/22/22
to
That can't be right. You made an offer. Mark accepted. Now, you're just
relying on him not enforcing the contract.

There may be some laws making gambling contracts unenforceable, though,
so you may be safe.

Jon Ribbens

unread,
Jun 22, 2022, 10:37:52 AM6/22/22
to
No, the Gambling Act 2005 part 17 made them enforceable.

Roger Hayter

unread,
Jun 22, 2022, 12:11:21 PM6/22/22
to
There used to be such a law. It was changed as far as bookies etc. are
concerned, but whether the change applied to private arrangements I don't
know.

--
Roger Hayter
0 new messages