Ghostrider Posted September 13, 2008 Report Share Posted September 13, 2008 ^^^ Too young, I would imagine.^^^ If her age is the issue that obliges anonymity for her, I presume she must be under 16, (I'm not sure what the minimum age is for being publically identified in relation to a crime). In which case, surely an underage girl having that amount of influence over a 60 year old man, is more a cause for concern about his character than an excuse of mitigation for his behaviour. [it could also be because they don't want to prejudice any trial she may be involved in. If she is involved in any other trial, logic would dictate that as it is insinuated in this guy's trial that she was the main reason he was operating as a Heroin dealer, she is very likely to be an accused in it. In that case, surely that trial should have been held before his, if she is the accused in another drugs related trial and is found not guilty, his excuse that her influence led him in to uncharacteristic behaviour suddenly becomes quite flimsy, but if she is found guilty in any such trial, it strengthens it no end. By giving him a lenient sentence the court has demonstrated that they believe she, whoever she is, was in part the cause of his actions. What proof do they have that that is the case without having a corresponding conviction on her? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spinner72 Posted September 13, 2008 Report Share Posted September 13, 2008 An older friend of mine was once approced by a lass not far from the wine shop and informed if he didnt go and buy her a bottle of WKD she would be crying rape. This could be an extreme version of a similar scenario. After all, the drug "trade" is all about exploiting vunerable people... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghostrider Posted September 13, 2008 Report Share Posted September 13, 2008 ^^ Even so, my points still apply, whatever her hold over him was, only being underage or being involved in a forthcoming trial could necessitate she remained anonymous. From how the report is presented it suggests that her influence was longer term, some lass coming along and announcing, "get me a bottle, or I shout 'rape'" may work with some, but one coming along and saying, "here, sell a few hits, or I cry 'rape'" doesn't fly anywhere near so well. The time you'll get for either one if it sticks is much as such, there is no deal to take. The main problem I have here is that apprently not only can the woman not be named, neither can the reason for her anonymity be revealed, nor can the nature of her alleged influence be detailed. Now I don't know whether that problem is created by the court not revealing either name of nature, of with the news report just not reporting on the nature, but as it stands the whole thing comes off very suss. Where is justice being "seen to be done" on this one? The information that's coming forth to the public is that the court is saying, "trust us....we know who she is, and we know its her fault he got involved in this". Maybe so, but to be afforded trust, the court needs to earn it, and with their track record, I'm not about to afford them the unconditional trust anytime soon, that they seem to be expecting on this one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j3ova Posted September 14, 2008 Report Share Posted September 14, 2008 Maybe sometimes people dont get named to protect them!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghostrider Posted September 15, 2008 Report Share Posted September 15, 2008 ^^ Of course they do, and new identities, relocated to the other end of the country et al. It doesn't help much to explain why the "young woman" mentioned in the media report cannot be named though. The report as it stands implicates her as very much the villain of the piece, perhaps she didn't commit any criminal offence per se, but its clearly stated that the court accepts she shares in the culpability to a significant degree, for the criminal offence committed by another. She is portrayed as the "baddie" while the guy takes the role of the "stooge", so what possible reason can there be to protect the "baddie", unless those I've already stated above? What makes it all the more absurd, although obviously couldn't be taken in to consideration by the court, is that by now a minimum of 50% of the toon's population know exactly who she is, and most of them have known since long before the case got to the court. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghostrider Posted October 8, 2008 Report Share Posted October 8, 2008 Did I miss something here, he was on an afternoon jaunt taking pot shots at folk, yet he's been told to stay at home nights for six months. And this would achive what may I ask.... http://www.shetlandtimes.co.uk/2008/10/08/curfew-for-bb-pistol-shooter/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shetlandcars Posted October 8, 2008 Report Share Posted October 8, 2008 The curfew is so he can get his evening rest for the next days target practice, its easier to hit something when you can see it Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PJ of Hildisvik Posted October 8, 2008 Report Share Posted October 8, 2008 ^^^^ It won't achieve nout.Bring back the "Stocks", market cross should be the best place, then anybody can take pot shots with anything of their choosing Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shetlandcars Posted October 8, 2008 Report Share Posted October 8, 2008 ^^^^ It won't achieve nout.Bring back the "Stocks", market cross should be the best place, then anybody can take pot shots with anything of their choosing Health & Safety nightmare Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PJ of Hildisvik Posted October 8, 2008 Report Share Posted October 8, 2008 ^^^^Siberian Gulag then? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paulb Posted October 8, 2008 Report Share Posted October 8, 2008 At Lerwick Sheriff Court his lawyer, Greer McRoberts, asked for a psychiatric report to assess Leask’s mental health problems which were said to include oppositional defiant disorder and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder.im sure theres another name for a person with oppositional defiant disorder. hes a toe rag plain and simple. has his name not cropped up before. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeemsie1989 Posted October 9, 2008 Report Share Posted October 9, 2008 I know Leask personally, and what he did was completely wrong and he should be punished. He does have, to put it gentally, "issues" of a psychological nature that have been brought on by hardships in life, which are completely understandable. But he is definitely smart enough to know the difference right and wrong, and does understand the difference. So should be punished accordingly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sudden Stop Posted October 9, 2008 Author Report Share Posted October 9, 2008 ^^^ And what should that punishment have been? If the psychiatric report says that in this instance the convict has no mental problems what so ever - surely he'd be looking at going to prison? I can understand jail time being inappropriate for some people of a fragile mental state. Having said that, just because someone has problems doesn't mean they should get away with doing whatever they want. To my layperson ear 'oppositional defiant disorder and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder', it sounds as if this chap will quite merrily do wrong on purpose and do it a lot! I doubt this sentence will be adhered to and he'll end up back in court - wasting more of the tax payers money. A lesson needs to be taught to this guy. Grounding him probably isn't going to do it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeemsie1989 Posted October 9, 2008 Report Share Posted October 9, 2008 ^^^ And what should that punishment have been? If the psychiatric report says that in this instance the convict has no mental problems what so ever - surely he'd be looking at going to prison? I can understand jail time being inappropriate for some people of a fragile mental state. Having said that, just because someone has problems doesn't mean they should get away with doing whatever they want. To my layperson ear 'oppositional defiant disorder and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder', it sounds as if this chap will quite merrily do wrong on purpose and do it a lot! I doubt this sentence will be adhered to and he'll end up back in court - wasting more of the tax payers money. A lesson needs to be taught to this guy. Grounding him probably isn't going to do it. Leask may have "issues" but their not the type that would make him ineligible for prison. His sentence should be a hefty amount of community service as noone was actually hurt by his actions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sudden Stop Posted October 9, 2008 Author Report Share Posted October 9, 2008 ^^^ Yeah but the intent was there. Think about the shoe bomber - nobody actually hurt but, come on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.