Man who broke victim's eye socket avoids jail by "whisker"

Man who broke victim's eye socket avoids jail by

Man who broke victim's eye socket avoids jail by "whisker"

First published in News
Last updated
by

A MAN who fractured another man’s eye socket with a single punch was told he had avoided jail “by a whisker”.

Burly six-footer Thomas Perry, 22, seriously injured victim Mark Cousins when he punched him in a Southend nightclub.

Passing sentence, Recorder Elroy Claxton told him the punch could have been lethal.

However, the judge said he was imposing a suspended prison sentence because the incident had been out of character for Perry, who was described as a hard-working plumber.

Perry admitted causing grievous bodily harm when he appeared before Basildon Crown Court. He was given an 18-month prison sentence, suspended for two years.

The court was shown CCTV footage of the attack, in Chameleon nightclub, in Lucy Road, including the punch and Mr Cousins falling back and hitting a pillar.

He ended up with a fractured right eye socket and a broken nose.

The court heard Perry, formerly of Rochford Road, Southend, but now of Runwell Road, Wickford, was going out with Mr Cousins’s former partner.

Samantha Lowther, prosecuting, said: “When the police officer arrived, he could see Mr Cousins’ nose bent from right to left. His right eye was bloodshot and there were cuts to his right eyebrow.”

Mr Cousins was also complaining of double vision after the attack, on November 9 last year and despite surgery, had suffered permanent damage to his senses of taste and smell.

Immediately after the incident, Perry had made his way to Southend police station to hand himself in, the court heard.

Perry’s lawyer, Nick Bonehill, said prior to the attack, his client had had an impeccable record.

He had left school with 11 good GCSEs and was considered one of Southend’s top plumbers by his employer.

The offence had cost Perry his job, since he could not continue there with a criminal record.

Mr Bonehill added: “This is very much against the way Mr Perry conducts his life. There had clearly been some issues between these individuals.

“This isn’t a case of pre-meditation.

This was an argument that escalated very quickly.

“He was never meaning to cause anything like the kind of injuries he did.”

As well as the suspended sentence, Perry was ordered to carry out 150 hours of unpaid work, and pay Mr Cousins £2,000 in compensation, plus a £100 victim surcharge and undisclosed court costs The judge added: “Your character references show you are level-headed and a hard worker.

“However, looking at your size, you must realise – and if you don’t, you must know now – a punch from you is lethal.

“I can’t ignore the injuries.

“I know you will live to regret this. There was no excuse to behave in the way you did on that day.

“You’ve come within a whisker of going away because of these injuries and from what I saw in the film, but from what I have read about you, I have decided not to sent you to prison.”

Comments (25)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

7:28am Wed 9 Jul 14

CHRISTMAS CAROL says...

Hard working plumber MY FOOT. more like a lazy good for nothing pusher
Hard working plumber MY FOOT. more like a lazy good for nothing pusher CHRISTMAS CAROL
  • Score: -6

7:57am Wed 9 Jul 14

supermadmax says...

Should not have handed himself in. He should have spoken to a solicitor first thing the next day where he would have been advised to either no comment or give a version that created enough doubt that he felt in physical danger himself and acted in self defence.

Its a shame, in society, when people like the plumber who work full time and stay out of trouble can lose their career and get a record for violence (no emigration for him, no big companies will touch him, it will come out when he uses a references even if they don't run checks..) Where as someone who has been around the block a few times would most likely be able to conceive a set of circumstances leading to a non guilty verdict.
Should not have handed himself in. He should have spoken to a solicitor first thing the next day where he would have been advised to either no comment or give a version that created enough doubt that he felt in physical danger himself and acted in self defence. Its a shame, in society, when people like the plumber who work full time and stay out of trouble can lose their career and get a record for violence (no emigration for him, no big companies will touch him, it will come out when he uses a references even if they don't run checks..) Where as someone who has been around the block a few times would most likely be able to conceive a set of circumstances leading to a non guilty verdict. supermadmax
  • Score: -4

9:45am Wed 9 Jul 14

n-unknown says...

supermadmax wrote:
Should not have handed himself in. He should have spoken to a solicitor first thing the next day where he would have been advised to either no comment or give a version that created enough doubt that he felt in physical danger himself and acted in self defence.

Its a shame, in society, when people like the plumber who work full time and stay out of trouble can lose their career and get a record for violence (no emigration for him, no big companies will touch him, it will come out when he uses a references even if they don't run checks..) Where as someone who has been around the block a few times would most likely be able to conceive a set of circumstances leading to a non guilty verdict.
I can't agree with your opinion. If he handed himself in, then he must've had a guilty conscience.

He did wrong, and he is now paying the price for it. If he didn't want to lose his job, he shouldn't of allowed the incident to get physical. No where in the above statement does it say that Perry acted in self defense. Perry admitted the attack which means he may or may have not of instigated the fight, but did not swing for reasons of self defense. Otherwise I am sure that would've been keyed out and Perry's lawyer's main defense tactic in court.

Too many people don't care about the consequences before starting, or getting into, a fight these days. This is a prime example.
[quote][p][bold]supermadmax[/bold] wrote: Should not have handed himself in. He should have spoken to a solicitor first thing the next day where he would have been advised to either no comment or give a version that created enough doubt that he felt in physical danger himself and acted in self defence. Its a shame, in society, when people like the plumber who work full time and stay out of trouble can lose their career and get a record for violence (no emigration for him, no big companies will touch him, it will come out when he uses a references even if they don't run checks..) Where as someone who has been around the block a few times would most likely be able to conceive a set of circumstances leading to a non guilty verdict.[/p][/quote]I can't agree with your opinion. If he handed himself in, then he must've had a guilty conscience. He did wrong, and he is now paying the price for it. If he didn't want to lose his job, he shouldn't of allowed the incident to get physical. No where in the above statement does it say that Perry acted in self defense. Perry admitted the attack which means he may or may have not of instigated the fight, but did not swing for reasons of self defense. Otherwise I am sure that would've been keyed out and Perry's lawyer's main defense tactic in court. Too many people don't care about the consequences before starting, or getting into, a fight these days. This is a prime example. n-unknown
  • Score: 11

9:59am Wed 9 Jul 14

Southend1853 says...

I have vile messages from tom perry sent to me when i was younger threatening me and my best friend received equally disgusting threats. He also attacked me at a party when we were in our teens by grabbing my throat. He is not a nice character and I am not surprised by this recent event.
I have vile messages from tom perry sent to me when i was younger threatening me and my best friend received equally disgusting threats. He also attacked me at a party when we were in our teens by grabbing my throat. He is not a nice character and I am not surprised by this recent event. Southend1853
  • Score: 5

10:49am Wed 9 Jul 14

pembury53 says...

more meaningless drivel from the 'justice' system...... "he escaped prison by a whisker"..... no, he escaped prison for serious GBH, period... a 'whisker' doesn't really exist in this context...... "he had an impeccable character"..... so what, there a thousands of thugs and criminals that have never been before a court, so have 'impeccable character'..... the long and short of it, is that another case of serious violence, where the victim suffers potentially life changing injury, is treated as leniently as possible by the courts...... the message seems to be that violence really isn't considered too much to get worked up about....
more meaningless drivel from the 'justice' system...... "he escaped prison by a whisker"..... no, he escaped prison for serious GBH, period... a 'whisker' doesn't really exist in this context...... "he had an impeccable character"..... so what, there a thousands of thugs and criminals that have never been before a court, so have 'impeccable character'..... the long and short of it, is that another case of serious violence, where the victim suffers potentially life changing injury, is treated as leniently as possible by the courts...... the message seems to be that violence really isn't considered too much to get worked up about.... pembury53
  • Score: 6

11:16am Wed 9 Jul 14

Happy Chickie says...

Sue him in civil court. If the justice system won't work, make civil court will
Sue him in civil court. If the justice system won't work, make civil court will Happy Chickie
  • Score: 2

11:44am Wed 9 Jul 14

Maddogg says...

This Perry character is nothing more than a thug. Locking him up would do him and society a favour. How can this pondlife get away with this?
This Perry character is nothing more than a thug. Locking him up would do him and society a favour. How can this pondlife get away with this? Maddogg
  • Score: 5

12:05pm Wed 9 Jul 14

supermadmax says...

n-unknown wrote:
supermadmax wrote:
Should not have handed himself in. He should have spoken to a solicitor first thing the next day where he would have been advised to either no comment or give a version that created enough doubt that he felt in physical danger himself and acted in self defence.

Its a shame, in society, when people like the plumber who work full time and stay out of trouble can lose their career and get a record for violence (no emigration for him, no big companies will touch him, it will come out when he uses a references even if they don't run checks..) Where as someone who has been around the block a few times would most likely be able to conceive a set of circumstances leading to a non guilty verdict.
I can't agree with your opinion. If he handed himself in, then he must've had a guilty conscience.

He did wrong, and he is now paying the price for it. If he didn't want to lose his job, he shouldn't of allowed the incident to get physical. No where in the above statement does it say that Perry acted in self defense. Perry admitted the attack which means he may or may have not of instigated the fight, but did not swing for reasons of self defense. Otherwise I am sure that would've been keyed out and Perry's lawyer's main defense tactic in court.

Too many people don't care about the consequences before starting, or getting into, a fight these days. This is a prime example.
" Perry admitted the attack which means he may or may have not of instigated the fight, but did not swing for reasons of self defense. Otherwise I am sure that would've been keyed out and Perry's lawyer's main defense tactic in court."

But that the point I'm making, he was clearly drunk and feeling guilty so he turned up at the police station blabbering on "I've committed an assault office" even by the time he got to sober up or speak to a solicitor it was already to late for him to back track. Someone who was more 'experienced' in these things would have stood a very good chance of getting off. He is being penalised for being a law abiding citizen who has no experience with the police & I think that's sad.
[quote][p][bold]n-unknown[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]supermadmax[/bold] wrote: Should not have handed himself in. He should have spoken to a solicitor first thing the next day where he would have been advised to either no comment or give a version that created enough doubt that he felt in physical danger himself and acted in self defence. Its a shame, in society, when people like the plumber who work full time and stay out of trouble can lose their career and get a record for violence (no emigration for him, no big companies will touch him, it will come out when he uses a references even if they don't run checks..) Where as someone who has been around the block a few times would most likely be able to conceive a set of circumstances leading to a non guilty verdict.[/p][/quote]I can't agree with your opinion. If he handed himself in, then he must've had a guilty conscience. He did wrong, and he is now paying the price for it. If he didn't want to lose his job, he shouldn't of allowed the incident to get physical. No where in the above statement does it say that Perry acted in self defense. Perry admitted the attack which means he may or may have not of instigated the fight, but did not swing for reasons of self defense. Otherwise I am sure that would've been keyed out and Perry's lawyer's main defense tactic in court. Too many people don't care about the consequences before starting, or getting into, a fight these days. This is a prime example.[/p][/quote]" Perry admitted the attack which means he may or may have not of instigated the fight, but did not swing for reasons of self defense. Otherwise I am sure that would've been keyed out and Perry's lawyer's main defense tactic in court." But that the point I'm making, he was clearly drunk and feeling guilty so he turned up at the police station blabbering on "I've committed an assault office" even by the time he got to sober up or speak to a solicitor it was already to late for him to back track. Someone who was more 'experienced' in these things would have stood a very good chance of getting off. He is being penalised for being a law abiding citizen who has no experience with the police & I think that's sad. supermadmax
  • Score: -7

12:51pm Wed 9 Jul 14

Maddogg says...

supermadmax wrote:
n-unknown wrote:
supermadmax wrote:
Should not have handed himself in. He should have spoken to a solicitor first thing the next day where he would have been advised to either no comment or give a version that created enough doubt that he felt in physical danger himself and acted in self defence.

Its a shame, in society, when people like the plumber who work full time and stay out of trouble can lose their career and get a record for violence (no emigration for him, no big companies will touch him, it will come out when he uses a references even if they don't run checks..) Where as someone who has been around the block a few times would most likely be able to conceive a set of circumstances leading to a non guilty verdict.
I can't agree with your opinion. If he handed himself in, then he must've had a guilty conscience.

He did wrong, and he is now paying the price for it. If he didn't want to lose his job, he shouldn't of allowed the incident to get physical. No where in the above statement does it say that Perry acted in self defense. Perry admitted the attack which means he may or may have not of instigated the fight, but did not swing for reasons of self defense. Otherwise I am sure that would've been keyed out and Perry's lawyer's main defense tactic in court.

Too many people don't care about the consequences before starting, or getting into, a fight these days. This is a prime example.
" Perry admitted the attack which means he may or may have not of instigated the fight, but did not swing for reasons of self defense. Otherwise I am sure that would've been keyed out and Perry's lawyer's main defense tactic in court."

But that the point I'm making, he was clearly drunk and feeling guilty so he turned up at the police station blabbering on "I've committed an assault office" even by the time he got to sober up or speak to a solicitor it was already to late for him to back track. Someone who was more 'experienced' in these things would have stood a very good chance of getting off. He is being penalised for being a law abiding citizen who has no experience with the police & I think that's sad.
Which part of breaking someone's eye socket and nose makes this bully a law abiding citizen? He is now an unemployable thug, that for some reason, did not get the justice he deserved.
[quote][p][bold]supermadmax[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]n-unknown[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]supermadmax[/bold] wrote: Should not have handed himself in. He should have spoken to a solicitor first thing the next day where he would have been advised to either no comment or give a version that created enough doubt that he felt in physical danger himself and acted in self defence. Its a shame, in society, when people like the plumber who work full time and stay out of trouble can lose their career and get a record for violence (no emigration for him, no big companies will touch him, it will come out when he uses a references even if they don't run checks..) Where as someone who has been around the block a few times would most likely be able to conceive a set of circumstances leading to a non guilty verdict.[/p][/quote]I can't agree with your opinion. If he handed himself in, then he must've had a guilty conscience. He did wrong, and he is now paying the price for it. If he didn't want to lose his job, he shouldn't of allowed the incident to get physical. No where in the above statement does it say that Perry acted in self defense. Perry admitted the attack which means he may or may have not of instigated the fight, but did not swing for reasons of self defense. Otherwise I am sure that would've been keyed out and Perry's lawyer's main defense tactic in court. Too many people don't care about the consequences before starting, or getting into, a fight these days. This is a prime example.[/p][/quote]" Perry admitted the attack which means he may or may have not of instigated the fight, but did not swing for reasons of self defense. Otherwise I am sure that would've been keyed out and Perry's lawyer's main defense tactic in court." But that the point I'm making, he was clearly drunk and feeling guilty so he turned up at the police station blabbering on "I've committed an assault office" even by the time he got to sober up or speak to a solicitor it was already to late for him to back track. Someone who was more 'experienced' in these things would have stood a very good chance of getting off. He is being penalised for being a law abiding citizen who has no experience with the police & I think that's sad.[/p][/quote]Which part of breaking someone's eye socket and nose makes this bully a law abiding citizen? He is now an unemployable thug, that for some reason, did not get the justice he deserved. Maddogg
  • Score: 5

1:24pm Wed 9 Jul 14

n-unknown says...

supermadmax wrote:
n-unknown wrote:
supermadmax wrote:
Should not have handed himself in. He should have spoken to a solicitor first thing the next day where he would have been advised to either no comment or give a version that created enough doubt that he felt in physical danger himself and acted in self defence.

Its a shame, in society, when people like the plumber who work full time and stay out of trouble can lose their career and get a record for violence (no emigration for him, no big companies will touch him, it will come out when he uses a references even if they don't run checks..) Where as someone who has been around the block a few times would most likely be able to conceive a set of circumstances leading to a non guilty verdict.
I can't agree with your opinion. If he handed himself in, then he must've had a guilty conscience.

He did wrong, and he is now paying the price for it. If he didn't want to lose his job, he shouldn't of allowed the incident to get physical. No where in the above statement does it say that Perry acted in self defense. Perry admitted the attack which means he may or may have not of instigated the fight, but did not swing for reasons of self defense. Otherwise I am sure that would've been keyed out and Perry's lawyer's main defense tactic in court.

Too many people don't care about the consequences before starting, or getting into, a fight these days. This is a prime example.
" Perry admitted the attack which means he may or may have not of instigated the fight, but did not swing for reasons of self defense. Otherwise I am sure that would've been keyed out and Perry's lawyer's main defense tactic in court."

But that the point I'm making, he was clearly drunk and feeling guilty so he turned up at the police station blabbering on "I've committed an assault office" even by the time he got to sober up or speak to a solicitor it was already to late for him to back track. Someone who was more 'experienced' in these things would have stood a very good chance of getting off. He is being penalised for being a law abiding citizen who has no experience with the police & I think that's sad.
1. Someone with 'experience' (i.e. has done something similar before) would not be a first time offender then, would they?

2. He is being penalised because he physically assaulted someone, which resulted in that person needing surgery to correct his injury. He also suffered permanent damage to his sense of taste and smell. That's why he was taken to court... not because the court felt like it.

3. He can't be a law abiding citizen if he has admitted assaulting someone... how the hell is that abiding by the law?

4. He admitted the attack. There is no mention of alcohol, sobering up, under the influence. Fair enough you can assume this, but he could've driven that night for all you know. It still doesn't add any kind of defense to his case. He admitted it.

Stop assuming too much. He shouldn't have got into the fight in the first place, or at least been prepared to face the consequences of his actions (which he did by turning himself in).

You're right about too late to back track. It was too late to back track as soon as his fist made connection with Mark Cousins face...
[quote][p][bold]supermadmax[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]n-unknown[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]supermadmax[/bold] wrote: Should not have handed himself in. He should have spoken to a solicitor first thing the next day where he would have been advised to either no comment or give a version that created enough doubt that he felt in physical danger himself and acted in self defence. Its a shame, in society, when people like the plumber who work full time and stay out of trouble can lose their career and get a record for violence (no emigration for him, no big companies will touch him, it will come out when he uses a references even if they don't run checks..) Where as someone who has been around the block a few times would most likely be able to conceive a set of circumstances leading to a non guilty verdict.[/p][/quote]I can't agree with your opinion. If he handed himself in, then he must've had a guilty conscience. He did wrong, and he is now paying the price for it. If he didn't want to lose his job, he shouldn't of allowed the incident to get physical. No where in the above statement does it say that Perry acted in self defense. Perry admitted the attack which means he may or may have not of instigated the fight, but did not swing for reasons of self defense. Otherwise I am sure that would've been keyed out and Perry's lawyer's main defense tactic in court. Too many people don't care about the consequences before starting, or getting into, a fight these days. This is a prime example.[/p][/quote]" Perry admitted the attack which means he may or may have not of instigated the fight, but did not swing for reasons of self defense. Otherwise I am sure that would've been keyed out and Perry's lawyer's main defense tactic in court." But that the point I'm making, he was clearly drunk and feeling guilty so he turned up at the police station blabbering on "I've committed an assault office" even by the time he got to sober up or speak to a solicitor it was already to late for him to back track. Someone who was more 'experienced' in these things would have stood a very good chance of getting off. He is being penalised for being a law abiding citizen who has no experience with the police & I think that's sad.[/p][/quote]1. Someone with 'experience' (i.e. has done something similar before) would not be a first time offender then, would they? 2. He is being penalised because he physically assaulted someone, which resulted in that person needing surgery to correct his injury. He also suffered permanent damage to his sense of taste and smell. That's why he was taken to court... not because the court felt like it. 3. He can't be a law abiding citizen if he has admitted assaulting someone... how the hell is that abiding by the law? 4. He admitted the attack. There is no mention of alcohol, sobering up, under the influence. Fair enough you can assume this, but he could've driven that night for all you know. It still doesn't add any kind of defense to his case. He admitted it. Stop assuming too much. He shouldn't have got into the fight in the first place, or at least been prepared to face the consequences of his actions (which he did by turning himself in). You're right about too late to back track. It was too late to back track as soon as his fist made connection with Mark Cousins face... n-unknown
  • Score: 5

1:35pm Wed 9 Jul 14

supermadmax says...

n-unknown wrote:
supermadmax wrote:
n-unknown wrote:
supermadmax wrote:
Should not have handed himself in. He should have spoken to a solicitor first thing the next day where he would have been advised to either no comment or give a version that created enough doubt that he felt in physical danger himself and acted in self defence.

Its a shame, in society, when people like the plumber who work full time and stay out of trouble can lose their career and get a record for violence (no emigration for him, no big companies will touch him, it will come out when he uses a references even if they don't run checks..) Where as someone who has been around the block a few times would most likely be able to conceive a set of circumstances leading to a non guilty verdict.
I can't agree with your opinion. If he handed himself in, then he must've had a guilty conscience.

He did wrong, and he is now paying the price for it. If he didn't want to lose his job, he shouldn't of allowed the incident to get physical. No where in the above statement does it say that Perry acted in self defense. Perry admitted the attack which means he may or may have not of instigated the fight, but did not swing for reasons of self defense. Otherwise I am sure that would've been keyed out and Perry's lawyer's main defense tactic in court.

Too many people don't care about the consequences before starting, or getting into, a fight these days. This is a prime example.
" Perry admitted the attack which means he may or may have not of instigated the fight, but did not swing for reasons of self defense. Otherwise I am sure that would've been keyed out and Perry's lawyer's main defense tactic in court."

But that the point I'm making, he was clearly drunk and feeling guilty so he turned up at the police station blabbering on "I've committed an assault office" even by the time he got to sober up or speak to a solicitor it was already to late for him to back track. Someone who was more 'experienced' in these things would have stood a very good chance of getting off. He is being penalised for being a law abiding citizen who has no experience with the police & I think that's sad.
1. Someone with 'experience' (i.e. has done something similar before) would not be a first time offender then, would they?

2. He is being penalised because he physically assaulted someone, which resulted in that person needing surgery to correct his injury. He also suffered permanent damage to his sense of taste and smell. That's why he was taken to court... not because the court felt like it.

3. He can't be a law abiding citizen if he has admitted assaulting someone... how the hell is that abiding by the law?

4. He admitted the attack. There is no mention of alcohol, sobering up, under the influence. Fair enough you can assume this, but he could've driven that night for all you know. It still doesn't add any kind of defense to his case. He admitted it.

Stop assuming too much. He shouldn't have got into the fight in the first place, or at least been prepared to face the consequences of his actions (which he did by turning himself in).

You're right about too late to back track. It was too late to back track as soon as his fist made connection with Mark Cousins face...
1. Someone with 'experience' (i.e. has done something similar before) would not be a first time offender then, would they?

That's correct & they would stand a much better chance of getting off because they would have a better understanding of the system / process.

2. He is being penalised because he physically assaulted someone, which resulted in that person needing surgery to correct his injury. He also suffered permanent damage to his sense of taste and smell

Come on!!! I doubt he was the entirely innocent victim he is being made out to be and prosecution always play up the injuries.

3. He can't be a law abiding citizen if he has admitted assaulting someone... how the hell is that abiding by the law?

That's a mute point. What's relevant is that first time offenders have a much higher prospect of being convicted (even if they do often receive a lesser punishment once convicted)

4. He admitted the attack. There is no mention of alcohol

Oh Please!!! I think you're the one assuming to much! Someone of previous good charter involved in a late night nightclub altercation!! Its illogical to assume he was sober.
[quote][p][bold]n-unknown[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]supermadmax[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]n-unknown[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]supermadmax[/bold] wrote: Should not have handed himself in. He should have spoken to a solicitor first thing the next day where he would have been advised to either no comment or give a version that created enough doubt that he felt in physical danger himself and acted in self defence. Its a shame, in society, when people like the plumber who work full time and stay out of trouble can lose their career and get a record for violence (no emigration for him, no big companies will touch him, it will come out when he uses a references even if they don't run checks..) Where as someone who has been around the block a few times would most likely be able to conceive a set of circumstances leading to a non guilty verdict.[/p][/quote]I can't agree with your opinion. If he handed himself in, then he must've had a guilty conscience. He did wrong, and he is now paying the price for it. If he didn't want to lose his job, he shouldn't of allowed the incident to get physical. No where in the above statement does it say that Perry acted in self defense. Perry admitted the attack which means he may or may have not of instigated the fight, but did not swing for reasons of self defense. Otherwise I am sure that would've been keyed out and Perry's lawyer's main defense tactic in court. Too many people don't care about the consequences before starting, or getting into, a fight these days. This is a prime example.[/p][/quote]" Perry admitted the attack which means he may or may have not of instigated the fight, but did not swing for reasons of self defense. Otherwise I am sure that would've been keyed out and Perry's lawyer's main defense tactic in court." But that the point I'm making, he was clearly drunk and feeling guilty so he turned up at the police station blabbering on "I've committed an assault office" even by the time he got to sober up or speak to a solicitor it was already to late for him to back track. Someone who was more 'experienced' in these things would have stood a very good chance of getting off. He is being penalised for being a law abiding citizen who has no experience with the police & I think that's sad.[/p][/quote]1. Someone with 'experience' (i.e. has done something similar before) would not be a first time offender then, would they? 2. He is being penalised because he physically assaulted someone, which resulted in that person needing surgery to correct his injury. He also suffered permanent damage to his sense of taste and smell. That's why he was taken to court... not because the court felt like it. 3. He can't be a law abiding citizen if he has admitted assaulting someone... how the hell is that abiding by the law? 4. He admitted the attack. There is no mention of alcohol, sobering up, under the influence. Fair enough you can assume this, but he could've driven that night for all you know. It still doesn't add any kind of defense to his case. He admitted it. Stop assuming too much. He shouldn't have got into the fight in the first place, or at least been prepared to face the consequences of his actions (which he did by turning himself in). You're right about too late to back track. It was too late to back track as soon as his fist made connection with Mark Cousins face...[/p][/quote]1. Someone with 'experience' (i.e. has done something similar before) would not be a first time offender then, would they? That's correct & they would stand a much better chance of getting off because they would have a better understanding of the system / process. 2. He is being penalised because he physically assaulted someone, which resulted in that person needing surgery to correct his injury. He also suffered permanent damage to his sense of taste and smell Come on!!! I doubt he was the entirely innocent victim he is being made out to be and prosecution always play up the injuries. 3. He can't be a law abiding citizen if he has admitted assaulting someone... how the hell is that abiding by the law? That's a mute point. What's relevant is that first time offenders have a much higher prospect of being convicted (even if they do often receive a lesser punishment once convicted) 4. He admitted the attack. There is no mention of alcohol Oh Please!!! I think you're the one assuming to much! Someone of previous good charter involved in a late night nightclub altercation!! Its illogical to assume he was sober. supermadmax
  • Score: -4

1:42pm Wed 9 Jul 14

n-unknown says...

supermadmax wrote:
n-unknown wrote:
supermadmax wrote:
n-unknown wrote:
supermadmax wrote:
Should not have handed himself in. He should have spoken to a solicitor first thing the next day where he would have been advised to either no comment or give a version that created enough doubt that he felt in physical danger himself and acted in self defence.

Its a shame, in society, when people like the plumber who work full time and stay out of trouble can lose their career and get a record for violence (no emigration for him, no big companies will touch him, it will come out when he uses a references even if they don't run checks..) Where as someone who has been around the block a few times would most likely be able to conceive a set of circumstances leading to a non guilty verdict.
I can't agree with your opinion. If he handed himself in, then he must've had a guilty conscience.

He did wrong, and he is now paying the price for it. If he didn't want to lose his job, he shouldn't of allowed the incident to get physical. No where in the above statement does it say that Perry acted in self defense. Perry admitted the attack which means he may or may have not of instigated the fight, but did not swing for reasons of self defense. Otherwise I am sure that would've been keyed out and Perry's lawyer's main defense tactic in court.

Too many people don't care about the consequences before starting, or getting into, a fight these days. This is a prime example.
" Perry admitted the attack which means he may or may have not of instigated the fight, but did not swing for reasons of self defense. Otherwise I am sure that would've been keyed out and Perry's lawyer's main defense tactic in court."

But that the point I'm making, he was clearly drunk and feeling guilty so he turned up at the police station blabbering on "I've committed an assault office" even by the time he got to sober up or speak to a solicitor it was already to late for him to back track. Someone who was more 'experienced' in these things would have stood a very good chance of getting off. He is being penalised for being a law abiding citizen who has no experience with the police & I think that's sad.
1. Someone with 'experience' (i.e. has done something similar before) would not be a first time offender then, would they?

2. He is being penalised because he physically assaulted someone, which resulted in that person needing surgery to correct his injury. He also suffered permanent damage to his sense of taste and smell. That's why he was taken to court... not because the court felt like it.

3. He can't be a law abiding citizen if he has admitted assaulting someone... how the hell is that abiding by the law?

4. He admitted the attack. There is no mention of alcohol, sobering up, under the influence. Fair enough you can assume this, but he could've driven that night for all you know. It still doesn't add any kind of defense to his case. He admitted it.

Stop assuming too much. He shouldn't have got into the fight in the first place, or at least been prepared to face the consequences of his actions (which he did by turning himself in).

You're right about too late to back track. It was too late to back track as soon as his fist made connection with Mark Cousins face...
1. Someone with 'experience' (i.e. has done something similar before) would not be a first time offender then, would they?

That's correct & they would stand a much better chance of getting off because they would have a better understanding of the system / process.

2. He is being penalised because he physically assaulted someone, which resulted in that person needing surgery to correct his injury. He also suffered permanent damage to his sense of taste and smell

Come on!!! I doubt he was the entirely innocent victim he is being made out to be and prosecution always play up the injuries.

3. He can't be a law abiding citizen if he has admitted assaulting someone... how the hell is that abiding by the law?

That's a mute point. What's relevant is that first time offenders have a much higher prospect of being convicted (even if they do often receive a lesser punishment once convicted)

4. He admitted the attack. There is no mention of alcohol

Oh Please!!! I think you're the one assuming to much! Someone of previous good charter involved in a late night nightclub altercation!! Its illogical to assume he was sober.
Okay, he was drunk.... what now? He still did it.

You're jumping to the defense of someone who caused the physical damage regardless of who swung first.

Lets just agree to disagree you keyboard warrior ;-) enjoy your day SUPER mad max
[quote][p][bold]supermadmax[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]n-unknown[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]supermadmax[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]n-unknown[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]supermadmax[/bold] wrote: Should not have handed himself in. He should have spoken to a solicitor first thing the next day where he would have been advised to either no comment or give a version that created enough doubt that he felt in physical danger himself and acted in self defence. Its a shame, in society, when people like the plumber who work full time and stay out of trouble can lose their career and get a record for violence (no emigration for him, no big companies will touch him, it will come out when he uses a references even if they don't run checks..) Where as someone who has been around the block a few times would most likely be able to conceive a set of circumstances leading to a non guilty verdict.[/p][/quote]I can't agree with your opinion. If he handed himself in, then he must've had a guilty conscience. He did wrong, and he is now paying the price for it. If he didn't want to lose his job, he shouldn't of allowed the incident to get physical. No where in the above statement does it say that Perry acted in self defense. Perry admitted the attack which means he may or may have not of instigated the fight, but did not swing for reasons of self defense. Otherwise I am sure that would've been keyed out and Perry's lawyer's main defense tactic in court. Too many people don't care about the consequences before starting, or getting into, a fight these days. This is a prime example.[/p][/quote]" Perry admitted the attack which means he may or may have not of instigated the fight, but did not swing for reasons of self defense. Otherwise I am sure that would've been keyed out and Perry's lawyer's main defense tactic in court." But that the point I'm making, he was clearly drunk and feeling guilty so he turned up at the police station blabbering on "I've committed an assault office" even by the time he got to sober up or speak to a solicitor it was already to late for him to back track. Someone who was more 'experienced' in these things would have stood a very good chance of getting off. He is being penalised for being a law abiding citizen who has no experience with the police & I think that's sad.[/p][/quote]1. Someone with 'experience' (i.e. has done something similar before) would not be a first time offender then, would they? 2. He is being penalised because he physically assaulted someone, which resulted in that person needing surgery to correct his injury. He also suffered permanent damage to his sense of taste and smell. That's why he was taken to court... not because the court felt like it. 3. He can't be a law abiding citizen if he has admitted assaulting someone... how the hell is that abiding by the law? 4. He admitted the attack. There is no mention of alcohol, sobering up, under the influence. Fair enough you can assume this, but he could've driven that night for all you know. It still doesn't add any kind of defense to his case. He admitted it. Stop assuming too much. He shouldn't have got into the fight in the first place, or at least been prepared to face the consequences of his actions (which he did by turning himself in). You're right about too late to back track. It was too late to back track as soon as his fist made connection with Mark Cousins face...[/p][/quote]1. Someone with 'experience' (i.e. has done something similar before) would not be a first time offender then, would they? That's correct & they would stand a much better chance of getting off because they would have a better understanding of the system / process. 2. He is being penalised because he physically assaulted someone, which resulted in that person needing surgery to correct his injury. He also suffered permanent damage to his sense of taste and smell Come on!!! I doubt he was the entirely innocent victim he is being made out to be and prosecution always play up the injuries. 3. He can't be a law abiding citizen if he has admitted assaulting someone... how the hell is that abiding by the law? That's a mute point. What's relevant is that first time offenders have a much higher prospect of being convicted (even if they do often receive a lesser punishment once convicted) 4. He admitted the attack. There is no mention of alcohol Oh Please!!! I think you're the one assuming to much! Someone of previous good charter involved in a late night nightclub altercation!! Its illogical to assume he was sober.[/p][/quote]Okay, he was drunk.... what now? He still did it. You're jumping to the defense of someone who caused the physical damage regardless of who swung first. Lets just agree to disagree you keyboard warrior ;-) enjoy your day SUPER mad max n-unknown
  • Score: 5

1:44pm Wed 9 Jul 14

n-unknown says...

supermadmax wrote:
n-unknown wrote:
supermadmax wrote:
n-unknown wrote:
supermadmax wrote:
Should not have handed himself in. He should have spoken to a solicitor first thing the next day where he would have been advised to either no comment or give a version that created enough doubt that he felt in physical danger himself and acted in self defence.

Its a shame, in society, when people like the plumber who work full time and stay out of trouble can lose their career and get a record for violence (no emigration for him, no big companies will touch him, it will come out when he uses a references even if they don't run checks..) Where as someone who has been around the block a few times would most likely be able to conceive a set of circumstances leading to a non guilty verdict.
I can't agree with your opinion. If he handed himself in, then he must've had a guilty conscience.

He did wrong, and he is now paying the price for it. If he didn't want to lose his job, he shouldn't of allowed the incident to get physical. No where in the above statement does it say that Perry acted in self defense. Perry admitted the attack which means he may or may have not of instigated the fight, but did not swing for reasons of self defense. Otherwise I am sure that would've been keyed out and Perry's lawyer's main defense tactic in court.

Too many people don't care about the consequences before starting, or getting into, a fight these days. This is a prime example.
" Perry admitted the attack which means he may or may have not of instigated the fight, but did not swing for reasons of self defense. Otherwise I am sure that would've been keyed out and Perry's lawyer's main defense tactic in court."

But that the point I'm making, he was clearly drunk and feeling guilty so he turned up at the police station blabbering on "I've committed an assault office" even by the time he got to sober up or speak to a solicitor it was already to late for him to back track. Someone who was more 'experienced' in these things would have stood a very good chance of getting off. He is being penalised for being a law abiding citizen who has no experience with the police & I think that's sad.
1. Someone with 'experience' (i.e. has done something similar before) would not be a first time offender then, would they?

2. He is being penalised because he physically assaulted someone, which resulted in that person needing surgery to correct his injury. He also suffered permanent damage to his sense of taste and smell. That's why he was taken to court... not because the court felt like it.

3. He can't be a law abiding citizen if he has admitted assaulting someone... how the hell is that abiding by the law?

4. He admitted the attack. There is no mention of alcohol, sobering up, under the influence. Fair enough you can assume this, but he could've driven that night for all you know. It still doesn't add any kind of defense to his case. He admitted it.

Stop assuming too much. He shouldn't have got into the fight in the first place, or at least been prepared to face the consequences of his actions (which he did by turning himself in).

You're right about too late to back track. It was too late to back track as soon as his fist made connection with Mark Cousins face...
1. Someone with 'experience' (i.e. has done something similar before) would not be a first time offender then, would they?

That's correct & they would stand a much better chance of getting off because they would have a better understanding of the system / process.

2. He is being penalised because he physically assaulted someone, which resulted in that person needing surgery to correct his injury. He also suffered permanent damage to his sense of taste and smell

Come on!!! I doubt he was the entirely innocent victim he is being made out to be and prosecution always play up the injuries.

3. He can't be a law abiding citizen if he has admitted assaulting someone... how the hell is that abiding by the law?

That's a mute point. What's relevant is that first time offenders have a much higher prospect of being convicted (even if they do often receive a lesser punishment once convicted)

4. He admitted the attack. There is no mention of alcohol

Oh Please!!! I think you're the one assuming to much! Someone of previous good charter involved in a late night nightclub altercation!! Its illogical to assume he was sober.
p.s. there are no assumptions in my comments. Just going by what has been stated in the article. The alcohol thing can go either way just because it hasn't been confirmed in the article.
[quote][p][bold]supermadmax[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]n-unknown[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]supermadmax[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]n-unknown[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]supermadmax[/bold] wrote: Should not have handed himself in. He should have spoken to a solicitor first thing the next day where he would have been advised to either no comment or give a version that created enough doubt that he felt in physical danger himself and acted in self defence. Its a shame, in society, when people like the plumber who work full time and stay out of trouble can lose their career and get a record for violence (no emigration for him, no big companies will touch him, it will come out when he uses a references even if they don't run checks..) Where as someone who has been around the block a few times would most likely be able to conceive a set of circumstances leading to a non guilty verdict.[/p][/quote]I can't agree with your opinion. If he handed himself in, then he must've had a guilty conscience. He did wrong, and he is now paying the price for it. If he didn't want to lose his job, he shouldn't of allowed the incident to get physical. No where in the above statement does it say that Perry acted in self defense. Perry admitted the attack which means he may or may have not of instigated the fight, but did not swing for reasons of self defense. Otherwise I am sure that would've been keyed out and Perry's lawyer's main defense tactic in court. Too many people don't care about the consequences before starting, or getting into, a fight these days. This is a prime example.[/p][/quote]" Perry admitted the attack which means he may or may have not of instigated the fight, but did not swing for reasons of self defense. Otherwise I am sure that would've been keyed out and Perry's lawyer's main defense tactic in court." But that the point I'm making, he was clearly drunk and feeling guilty so he turned up at the police station blabbering on "I've committed an assault office" even by the time he got to sober up or speak to a solicitor it was already to late for him to back track. Someone who was more 'experienced' in these things would have stood a very good chance of getting off. He is being penalised for being a law abiding citizen who has no experience with the police & I think that's sad.[/p][/quote]1. Someone with 'experience' (i.e. has done something similar before) would not be a first time offender then, would they? 2. He is being penalised because he physically assaulted someone, which resulted in that person needing surgery to correct his injury. He also suffered permanent damage to his sense of taste and smell. That's why he was taken to court... not because the court felt like it. 3. He can't be a law abiding citizen if he has admitted assaulting someone... how the hell is that abiding by the law? 4. He admitted the attack. There is no mention of alcohol, sobering up, under the influence. Fair enough you can assume this, but he could've driven that night for all you know. It still doesn't add any kind of defense to his case. He admitted it. Stop assuming too much. He shouldn't have got into the fight in the first place, or at least been prepared to face the consequences of his actions (which he did by turning himself in). You're right about too late to back track. It was too late to back track as soon as his fist made connection with Mark Cousins face...[/p][/quote]1. Someone with 'experience' (i.e. has done something similar before) would not be a first time offender then, would they? That's correct & they would stand a much better chance of getting off because they would have a better understanding of the system / process. 2. He is being penalised because he physically assaulted someone, which resulted in that person needing surgery to correct his injury. He also suffered permanent damage to his sense of taste and smell Come on!!! I doubt he was the entirely innocent victim he is being made out to be and prosecution always play up the injuries. 3. He can't be a law abiding citizen if he has admitted assaulting someone... how the hell is that abiding by the law? That's a mute point. What's relevant is that first time offenders have a much higher prospect of being convicted (even if they do often receive a lesser punishment once convicted) 4. He admitted the attack. There is no mention of alcohol Oh Please!!! I think you're the one assuming to much! Someone of previous good charter involved in a late night nightclub altercation!! Its illogical to assume he was sober.[/p][/quote]p.s. there are no assumptions in my comments. Just going by what has been stated in the article. The alcohol thing can go either way just because it hasn't been confirmed in the article. n-unknown
  • Score: 3

3:01pm Wed 9 Jul 14

supermadmax says...

n-unknown wrote:
supermadmax wrote:
n-unknown wrote:
supermadmax wrote:
n-unknown wrote:
supermadmax wrote:
Should not have handed himself in. He should have spoken to a solicitor first thing the next day where he would have been advised to either no comment or give a version that created enough doubt that he felt in physical danger himself and acted in self defence.

Its a shame, in society, when people like the plumber who work full time and stay out of trouble can lose their career and get a record for violence (no emigration for him, no big companies will touch him, it will come out when he uses a references even if they don't run checks..) Where as someone who has been around the block a few times would most likely be able to conceive a set of circumstances leading to a non guilty verdict.
I can't agree with your opinion. If he handed himself in, then he must've had a guilty conscience.

He did wrong, and he is now paying the price for it. If he didn't want to lose his job, he shouldn't of allowed the incident to get physical. No where in the above statement does it say that Perry acted in self defense. Perry admitted the attack which means he may or may have not of instigated the fight, but did not swing for reasons of self defense. Otherwise I am sure that would've been keyed out and Perry's lawyer's main defense tactic in court.

Too many people don't care about the consequences before starting, or getting into, a fight these days. This is a prime example.
" Perry admitted the attack which means he may or may have not of instigated the fight, but did not swing for reasons of self defense. Otherwise I am sure that would've been keyed out and Perry's lawyer's main defense tactic in court."

But that the point I'm making, he was clearly drunk and feeling guilty so he turned up at the police station blabbering on "I've committed an assault office" even by the time he got to sober up or speak to a solicitor it was already to late for him to back track. Someone who was more 'experienced' in these things would have stood a very good chance of getting off. He is being penalised for being a law abiding citizen who has no experience with the police & I think that's sad.
1. Someone with 'experience' (i.e. has done something similar before) would not be a first time offender then, would they?

2. He is being penalised because he physically assaulted someone, which resulted in that person needing surgery to correct his injury. He also suffered permanent damage to his sense of taste and smell. That's why he was taken to court... not because the court felt like it.

3. He can't be a law abiding citizen if he has admitted assaulting someone... how the hell is that abiding by the law?

4. He admitted the attack. There is no mention of alcohol, sobering up, under the influence. Fair enough you can assume this, but he could've driven that night for all you know. It still doesn't add any kind of defense to his case. He admitted it.

Stop assuming too much. He shouldn't have got into the fight in the first place, or at least been prepared to face the consequences of his actions (which he did by turning himself in).

You're right about too late to back track. It was too late to back track as soon as his fist made connection with Mark Cousins face...
1. Someone with 'experience' (i.e. has done something similar before) would not be a first time offender then, would they?

That's correct & they would stand a much better chance of getting off because they would have a better understanding of the system / process.

2. He is being penalised because he physically assaulted someone, which resulted in that person needing surgery to correct his injury. He also suffered permanent damage to his sense of taste and smell

Come on!!! I doubt he was the entirely innocent victim he is being made out to be and prosecution always play up the injuries.

3. He can't be a law abiding citizen if he has admitted assaulting someone... how the hell is that abiding by the law?

That's a mute point. What's relevant is that first time offenders have a much higher prospect of being convicted (even if they do often receive a lesser punishment once convicted)

4. He admitted the attack. There is no mention of alcohol

Oh Please!!! I think you're the one assuming to much! Someone of previous good charter involved in a late night nightclub altercation!! Its illogical to assume he was sober.
p.s. there are no assumptions in my comments. Just going by what has been stated in the article. The alcohol thing can go either way just because it hasn't been confirmed in the article.
"he could've driven that night for all you know"

??? No assumptions hey ?
[quote][p][bold]n-unknown[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]supermadmax[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]n-unknown[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]supermadmax[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]n-unknown[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]supermadmax[/bold] wrote: Should not have handed himself in. He should have spoken to a solicitor first thing the next day where he would have been advised to either no comment or give a version that created enough doubt that he felt in physical danger himself and acted in self defence. Its a shame, in society, when people like the plumber who work full time and stay out of trouble can lose their career and get a record for violence (no emigration for him, no big companies will touch him, it will come out when he uses a references even if they don't run checks..) Where as someone who has been around the block a few times would most likely be able to conceive a set of circumstances leading to a non guilty verdict.[/p][/quote]I can't agree with your opinion. If he handed himself in, then he must've had a guilty conscience. He did wrong, and he is now paying the price for it. If he didn't want to lose his job, he shouldn't of allowed the incident to get physical. No where in the above statement does it say that Perry acted in self defense. Perry admitted the attack which means he may or may have not of instigated the fight, but did not swing for reasons of self defense. Otherwise I am sure that would've been keyed out and Perry's lawyer's main defense tactic in court. Too many people don't care about the consequences before starting, or getting into, a fight these days. This is a prime example.[/p][/quote]" Perry admitted the attack which means he may or may have not of instigated the fight, but did not swing for reasons of self defense. Otherwise I am sure that would've been keyed out and Perry's lawyer's main defense tactic in court." But that the point I'm making, he was clearly drunk and feeling guilty so he turned up at the police station blabbering on "I've committed an assault office" even by the time he got to sober up or speak to a solicitor it was already to late for him to back track. Someone who was more 'experienced' in these things would have stood a very good chance of getting off. He is being penalised for being a law abiding citizen who has no experience with the police & I think that's sad.[/p][/quote]1. Someone with 'experience' (i.e. has done something similar before) would not be a first time offender then, would they? 2. He is being penalised because he physically assaulted someone, which resulted in that person needing surgery to correct his injury. He also suffered permanent damage to his sense of taste and smell. That's why he was taken to court... not because the court felt like it. 3. He can't be a law abiding citizen if he has admitted assaulting someone... how the hell is that abiding by the law? 4. He admitted the attack. There is no mention of alcohol, sobering up, under the influence. Fair enough you can assume this, but he could've driven that night for all you know. It still doesn't add any kind of defense to his case. He admitted it. Stop assuming too much. He shouldn't have got into the fight in the first place, or at least been prepared to face the consequences of his actions (which he did by turning himself in). You're right about too late to back track. It was too late to back track as soon as his fist made connection with Mark Cousins face...[/p][/quote]1. Someone with 'experience' (i.e. has done something similar before) would not be a first time offender then, would they? That's correct & they would stand a much better chance of getting off because they would have a better understanding of the system / process. 2. He is being penalised because he physically assaulted someone, which resulted in that person needing surgery to correct his injury. He also suffered permanent damage to his sense of taste and smell Come on!!! I doubt he was the entirely innocent victim he is being made out to be and prosecution always play up the injuries. 3. He can't be a law abiding citizen if he has admitted assaulting someone... how the hell is that abiding by the law? That's a mute point. What's relevant is that first time offenders have a much higher prospect of being convicted (even if they do often receive a lesser punishment once convicted) 4. He admitted the attack. There is no mention of alcohol Oh Please!!! I think you're the one assuming to much! Someone of previous good charter involved in a late night nightclub altercation!! Its illogical to assume he was sober.[/p][/quote]p.s. there are no assumptions in my comments. Just going by what has been stated in the article. The alcohol thing can go either way just because it hasn't been confirmed in the article.[/p][/quote]"he could've driven that night for all you know" ??? No assumptions hey ? supermadmax
  • Score: -4

3:04pm Wed 9 Jul 14

n-unknown says...

supermadmax wrote:
n-unknown wrote:
supermadmax wrote:
n-unknown wrote:
supermadmax wrote:
n-unknown wrote:
supermadmax wrote:
Should not have handed himself in. He should have spoken to a solicitor first thing the next day where he would have been advised to either no comment or give a version that created enough doubt that he felt in physical danger himself and acted in self defence.

Its a shame, in society, when people like the plumber who work full time and stay out of trouble can lose their career and get a record for violence (no emigration for him, no big companies will touch him, it will come out when he uses a references even if they don't run checks..) Where as someone who has been around the block a few times would most likely be able to conceive a set of circumstances leading to a non guilty verdict.
I can't agree with your opinion. If he handed himself in, then he must've had a guilty conscience.

He did wrong, and he is now paying the price for it. If he didn't want to lose his job, he shouldn't of allowed the incident to get physical. No where in the above statement does it say that Perry acted in self defense. Perry admitted the attack which means he may or may have not of instigated the fight, but did not swing for reasons of self defense. Otherwise I am sure that would've been keyed out and Perry's lawyer's main defense tactic in court.

Too many people don't care about the consequences before starting, or getting into, a fight these days. This is a prime example.
" Perry admitted the attack which means he may or may have not of instigated the fight, but did not swing for reasons of self defense. Otherwise I am sure that would've been keyed out and Perry's lawyer's main defense tactic in court."

But that the point I'm making, he was clearly drunk and feeling guilty so he turned up at the police station blabbering on "I've committed an assault office" even by the time he got to sober up or speak to a solicitor it was already to late for him to back track. Someone who was more 'experienced' in these things would have stood a very good chance of getting off. He is being penalised for being a law abiding citizen who has no experience with the police & I think that's sad.
1. Someone with 'experience' (i.e. has done something similar before) would not be a first time offender then, would they?

2. He is being penalised because he physically assaulted someone, which resulted in that person needing surgery to correct his injury. He also suffered permanent damage to his sense of taste and smell. That's why he was taken to court... not because the court felt like it.

3. He can't be a law abiding citizen if he has admitted assaulting someone... how the hell is that abiding by the law?

4. He admitted the attack. There is no mention of alcohol, sobering up, under the influence. Fair enough you can assume this, but he could've driven that night for all you know. It still doesn't add any kind of defense to his case. He admitted it.

Stop assuming too much. He shouldn't have got into the fight in the first place, or at least been prepared to face the consequences of his actions (which he did by turning himself in).

You're right about too late to back track. It was too late to back track as soon as his fist made connection with Mark Cousins face...
1. Someone with 'experience' (i.e. has done something similar before) would not be a first time offender then, would they?

That's correct & they would stand a much better chance of getting off because they would have a better understanding of the system / process.

2. He is being penalised because he physically assaulted someone, which resulted in that person needing surgery to correct his injury. He also suffered permanent damage to his sense of taste and smell

Come on!!! I doubt he was the entirely innocent victim he is being made out to be and prosecution always play up the injuries.

3. He can't be a law abiding citizen if he has admitted assaulting someone... how the hell is that abiding by the law?

That's a mute point. What's relevant is that first time offenders have a much higher prospect of being convicted (even if they do often receive a lesser punishment once convicted)

4. He admitted the attack. There is no mention of alcohol

Oh Please!!! I think you're the one assuming to much! Someone of previous good charter involved in a late night nightclub altercation!! Its illogical to assume he was sober.
p.s. there are no assumptions in my comments. Just going by what has been stated in the article. The alcohol thing can go either way just because it hasn't been confirmed in the article.
"he could've driven that night for all you know"

??? No assumptions hey ?
Do you even know what it means to 'assume' something?

What I said was not an assumption, it was a suggestion. There's a difference.
[quote][p][bold]supermadmax[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]n-unknown[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]supermadmax[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]n-unknown[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]supermadmax[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]n-unknown[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]supermadmax[/bold] wrote: Should not have handed himself in. He should have spoken to a solicitor first thing the next day where he would have been advised to either no comment or give a version that created enough doubt that he felt in physical danger himself and acted in self defence. Its a shame, in society, when people like the plumber who work full time and stay out of trouble can lose their career and get a record for violence (no emigration for him, no big companies will touch him, it will come out when he uses a references even if they don't run checks..) Where as someone who has been around the block a few times would most likely be able to conceive a set of circumstances leading to a non guilty verdict.[/p][/quote]I can't agree with your opinion. If he handed himself in, then he must've had a guilty conscience. He did wrong, and he is now paying the price for it. If he didn't want to lose his job, he shouldn't of allowed the incident to get physical. No where in the above statement does it say that Perry acted in self defense. Perry admitted the attack which means he may or may have not of instigated the fight, but did not swing for reasons of self defense. Otherwise I am sure that would've been keyed out and Perry's lawyer's main defense tactic in court. Too many people don't care about the consequences before starting, or getting into, a fight these days. This is a prime example.[/p][/quote]" Perry admitted the attack which means he may or may have not of instigated the fight, but did not swing for reasons of self defense. Otherwise I am sure that would've been keyed out and Perry's lawyer's main defense tactic in court." But that the point I'm making, he was clearly drunk and feeling guilty so he turned up at the police station blabbering on "I've committed an assault office" even by the time he got to sober up or speak to a solicitor it was already to late for him to back track. Someone who was more 'experienced' in these things would have stood a very good chance of getting off. He is being penalised for being a law abiding citizen who has no experience with the police & I think that's sad.[/p][/quote]1. Someone with 'experience' (i.e. has done something similar before) would not be a first time offender then, would they? 2. He is being penalised because he physically assaulted someone, which resulted in that person needing surgery to correct his injury. He also suffered permanent damage to his sense of taste and smell. That's why he was taken to court... not because the court felt like it. 3. He can't be a law abiding citizen if he has admitted assaulting someone... how the hell is that abiding by the law? 4. He admitted the attack. There is no mention of alcohol, sobering up, under the influence. Fair enough you can assume this, but he could've driven that night for all you know. It still doesn't add any kind of defense to his case. He admitted it. Stop assuming too much. He shouldn't have got into the fight in the first place, or at least been prepared to face the consequences of his actions (which he did by turning himself in). You're right about too late to back track. It was too late to back track as soon as his fist made connection with Mark Cousins face...[/p][/quote]1. Someone with 'experience' (i.e. has done something similar before) would not be a first time offender then, would they? That's correct & they would stand a much better chance of getting off because they would have a better understanding of the system / process. 2. He is being penalised because he physically assaulted someone, which resulted in that person needing surgery to correct his injury. He also suffered permanent damage to his sense of taste and smell Come on!!! I doubt he was the entirely innocent victim he is being made out to be and prosecution always play up the injuries. 3. He can't be a law abiding citizen if he has admitted assaulting someone... how the hell is that abiding by the law? That's a mute point. What's relevant is that first time offenders have a much higher prospect of being convicted (even if they do often receive a lesser punishment once convicted) 4. He admitted the attack. There is no mention of alcohol Oh Please!!! I think you're the one assuming to much! Someone of previous good charter involved in a late night nightclub altercation!! Its illogical to assume he was sober.[/p][/quote]p.s. there are no assumptions in my comments. Just going by what has been stated in the article. The alcohol thing can go either way just because it hasn't been confirmed in the article.[/p][/quote]"he could've driven that night for all you know" ??? No assumptions hey ?[/p][/quote]Do you even know what it means to 'assume' something? What I said was not an assumption, it was a suggestion. There's a difference. n-unknown
  • Score: 5

3:31pm Wed 9 Jul 14

supermadmax says...

n-unknown wrote:
supermadmax wrote:
n-unknown wrote:
supermadmax wrote:
n-unknown wrote:
supermadmax wrote:
n-unknown wrote:
supermadmax wrote:
Should not have handed himself in. He should have spoken to a solicitor first thing the next day where he would have been advised to either no comment or give a version that created enough doubt that he felt in physical danger himself and acted in self defence.

Its a shame, in society, when people like the plumber who work full time and stay out of trouble can lose their career and get a record for violence (no emigration for him, no big companies will touch him, it will come out when he uses a references even if they don't run checks..) Where as someone who has been around the block a few times would most likely be able to conceive a set of circumstances leading to a non guilty verdict.
I can't agree with your opinion. If he handed himself in, then he must've had a guilty conscience.

He did wrong, and he is now paying the price for it. If he didn't want to lose his job, he shouldn't of allowed the incident to get physical. No where in the above statement does it say that Perry acted in self defense. Perry admitted the attack which means he may or may have not of instigated the fight, but did not swing for reasons of self defense. Otherwise I am sure that would've been keyed out and Perry's lawyer's main defense tactic in court.

Too many people don't care about the consequences before starting, or getting into, a fight these days. This is a prime example.
" Perry admitted the attack which means he may or may have not of instigated the fight, but did not swing for reasons of self defense. Otherwise I am sure that would've been keyed out and Perry's lawyer's main defense tactic in court."

But that the point I'm making, he was clearly drunk and feeling guilty so he turned up at the police station blabbering on "I've committed an assault office" even by the time he got to sober up or speak to a solicitor it was already to late for him to back track. Someone who was more 'experienced' in these things would have stood a very good chance of getting off. He is being penalised for being a law abiding citizen who has no experience with the police & I think that's sad.
1. Someone with 'experience' (i.e. has done something similar before) would not be a first time offender then, would they?

2. He is being penalised because he physically assaulted someone, which resulted in that person needing surgery to correct his injury. He also suffered permanent damage to his sense of taste and smell. That's why he was taken to court... not because the court felt like it.

3. He can't be a law abiding citizen if he has admitted assaulting someone... how the hell is that abiding by the law?

4. He admitted the attack. There is no mention of alcohol, sobering up, under the influence. Fair enough you can assume this, but he could've driven that night for all you know. It still doesn't add any kind of defense to his case. He admitted it.

Stop assuming too much. He shouldn't have got into the fight in the first place, or at least been prepared to face the consequences of his actions (which he did by turning himself in).

You're right about too late to back track. It was too late to back track as soon as his fist made connection with Mark Cousins face...
1. Someone with 'experience' (i.e. has done something similar before) would not be a first time offender then, would they?

That's correct & they would stand a much better chance of getting off because they would have a better understanding of the system / process.

2. He is being penalised because he physically assaulted someone, which resulted in that person needing surgery to correct his injury. He also suffered permanent damage to his sense of taste and smell

Come on!!! I doubt he was the entirely innocent victim he is being made out to be and prosecution always play up the injuries.

3. He can't be a law abiding citizen if he has admitted assaulting someone... how the hell is that abiding by the law?

That's a mute point. What's relevant is that first time offenders have a much higher prospect of being convicted (even if they do often receive a lesser punishment once convicted)

4. He admitted the attack. There is no mention of alcohol

Oh Please!!! I think you're the one assuming to much! Someone of previous good charter involved in a late night nightclub altercation!! Its illogical to assume he was sober.
p.s. there are no assumptions in my comments. Just going by what has been stated in the article. The alcohol thing can go either way just because it hasn't been confirmed in the article.
"he could've driven that night for all you know"

??? No assumptions hey ?
Do you even know what it means to 'assume' something?

What I said was not an assumption, it was a suggestion. There's a difference.
Clearly I understand it better than you.

You have presented an alternative version in which you suggest the assumption that he was driving and therefore not drinking. You have made an assumption.
[quote][p][bold]n-unknown[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]supermadmax[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]n-unknown[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]supermadmax[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]n-unknown[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]supermadmax[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]n-unknown[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]supermadmax[/bold] wrote: Should not have handed himself in. He should have spoken to a solicitor first thing the next day where he would have been advised to either no comment or give a version that created enough doubt that he felt in physical danger himself and acted in self defence. Its a shame, in society, when people like the plumber who work full time and stay out of trouble can lose their career and get a record for violence (no emigration for him, no big companies will touch him, it will come out when he uses a references even if they don't run checks..) Where as someone who has been around the block a few times would most likely be able to conceive a set of circumstances leading to a non guilty verdict.[/p][/quote]I can't agree with your opinion. If he handed himself in, then he must've had a guilty conscience. He did wrong, and he is now paying the price for it. If he didn't want to lose his job, he shouldn't of allowed the incident to get physical. No where in the above statement does it say that Perry acted in self defense. Perry admitted the attack which means he may or may have not of instigated the fight, but did not swing for reasons of self defense. Otherwise I am sure that would've been keyed out and Perry's lawyer's main defense tactic in court. Too many people don't care about the consequences before starting, or getting into, a fight these days. This is a prime example.[/p][/quote]" Perry admitted the attack which means he may or may have not of instigated the fight, but did not swing for reasons of self defense. Otherwise I am sure that would've been keyed out and Perry's lawyer's main defense tactic in court." But that the point I'm making, he was clearly drunk and feeling guilty so he turned up at the police station blabbering on "I've committed an assault office" even by the time he got to sober up or speak to a solicitor it was already to late for him to back track. Someone who was more 'experienced' in these things would have stood a very good chance of getting off. He is being penalised for being a law abiding citizen who has no experience with the police & I think that's sad.[/p][/quote]1. Someone with 'experience' (i.e. has done something similar before) would not be a first time offender then, would they? 2. He is being penalised because he physically assaulted someone, which resulted in that person needing surgery to correct his injury. He also suffered permanent damage to his sense of taste and smell. That's why he was taken to court... not because the court felt like it. 3. He can't be a law abiding citizen if he has admitted assaulting someone... how the hell is that abiding by the law? 4. He admitted the attack. There is no mention of alcohol, sobering up, under the influence. Fair enough you can assume this, but he could've driven that night for all you know. It still doesn't add any kind of defense to his case. He admitted it. Stop assuming too much. He shouldn't have got into the fight in the first place, or at least been prepared to face the consequences of his actions (which he did by turning himself in). You're right about too late to back track. It was too late to back track as soon as his fist made connection with Mark Cousins face...[/p][/quote]1. Someone with 'experience' (i.e. has done something similar before) would not be a first time offender then, would they? That's correct & they would stand a much better chance of getting off because they would have a better understanding of the system / process. 2. He is being penalised because he physically assaulted someone, which resulted in that person needing surgery to correct his injury. He also suffered permanent damage to his sense of taste and smell Come on!!! I doubt he was the entirely innocent victim he is being made out to be and prosecution always play up the injuries. 3. He can't be a law abiding citizen if he has admitted assaulting someone... how the hell is that abiding by the law? That's a mute point. What's relevant is that first time offenders have a much higher prospect of being convicted (even if they do often receive a lesser punishment once convicted) 4. He admitted the attack. There is no mention of alcohol Oh Please!!! I think you're the one assuming to much! Someone of previous good charter involved in a late night nightclub altercation!! Its illogical to assume he was sober.[/p][/quote]p.s. there are no assumptions in my comments. Just going by what has been stated in the article. The alcohol thing can go either way just because it hasn't been confirmed in the article.[/p][/quote]"he could've driven that night for all you know" ??? No assumptions hey ?[/p][/quote]Do you even know what it means to 'assume' something? What I said was not an assumption, it was a suggestion. There's a difference.[/p][/quote]Clearly I understand it better than you. You have presented an alternative version in which you suggest the assumption that he was driving and therefore not drinking. You have made an assumption. supermadmax
  • Score: -3

3:35pm Wed 9 Jul 14

danger2013 says...

The guy who got assaulted should not be fighting someone of this size without the aid of a weapon. Even things up in the interest of fairness.
The guy who got assaulted should not be fighting someone of this size without the aid of a weapon. Even things up in the interest of fairness. danger2013
  • Score: 0

4:14pm Wed 9 Jul 14

n-unknown says...

supermadmax wrote:
n-unknown wrote:
supermadmax wrote:
n-unknown wrote:
supermadmax wrote:
n-unknown wrote:
supermadmax wrote:
n-unknown wrote:
supermadmax wrote:
Should not have handed himself in. He should have spoken to a solicitor first thing the next day where he would have been advised to either no comment or give a version that created enough doubt that he felt in physical danger himself and acted in self defence.

Its a shame, in society, when people like the plumber who work full time and stay out of trouble can lose their career and get a record for violence (no emigration for him, no big companies will touch him, it will come out when he uses a references even if they don't run checks..) Where as someone who has been around the block a few times would most likely be able to conceive a set of circumstances leading to a non guilty verdict.
I can't agree with your opinion. If he handed himself in, then he must've had a guilty conscience.

He did wrong, and he is now paying the price for it. If he didn't want to lose his job, he shouldn't of allowed the incident to get physical. No where in the above statement does it say that Perry acted in self defense. Perry admitted the attack which means he may or may have not of instigated the fight, but did not swing for reasons of self defense. Otherwise I am sure that would've been keyed out and Perry's lawyer's main defense tactic in court.

Too many people don't care about the consequences before starting, or getting into, a fight these days. This is a prime example.
" Perry admitted the attack which means he may or may have not of instigated the fight, but did not swing for reasons of self defense. Otherwise I am sure that would've been keyed out and Perry's lawyer's main defense tactic in court."

But that the point I'm making, he was clearly drunk and feeling guilty so he turned up at the police station blabbering on "I've committed an assault office" even by the time he got to sober up or speak to a solicitor it was already to late for him to back track. Someone who was more 'experienced' in these things would have stood a very good chance of getting off. He is being penalised for being a law abiding citizen who has no experience with the police & I think that's sad.
1. Someone with 'experience' (i.e. has done something similar before) would not be a first time offender then, would they?

2. He is being penalised because he physically assaulted someone, which resulted in that person needing surgery to correct his injury. He also suffered permanent damage to his sense of taste and smell. That's why he was taken to court... not because the court felt like it.

3. He can't be a law abiding citizen if he has admitted assaulting someone... how the hell is that abiding by the law?

4. He admitted the attack. There is no mention of alcohol, sobering up, under the influence. Fair enough you can assume this, but he could've driven that night for all you know. It still doesn't add any kind of defense to his case. He admitted it.

Stop assuming too much. He shouldn't have got into the fight in the first place, or at least been prepared to face the consequences of his actions (which he did by turning himself in).

You're right about too late to back track. It was too late to back track as soon as his fist made connection with Mark Cousins face...
1. Someone with 'experience' (i.e. has done something similar before) would not be a first time offender then, would they?

That's correct & they would stand a much better chance of getting off because they would have a better understanding of the system / process.

2. He is being penalised because he physically assaulted someone, which resulted in that person needing surgery to correct his injury. He also suffered permanent damage to his sense of taste and smell

Come on!!! I doubt he was the entirely innocent victim he is being made out to be and prosecution always play up the injuries.

3. He can't be a law abiding citizen if he has admitted assaulting someone... how the hell is that abiding by the law?

That's a mute point. What's relevant is that first time offenders have a much higher prospect of being convicted (even if they do often receive a lesser punishment once convicted)

4. He admitted the attack. There is no mention of alcohol

Oh Please!!! I think you're the one assuming to much! Someone of previous good charter involved in a late night nightclub altercation!! Its illogical to assume he was sober.
p.s. there are no assumptions in my comments. Just going by what has been stated in the article. The alcohol thing can go either way just because it hasn't been confirmed in the article.
"he could've driven that night for all you know"

??? No assumptions hey ?
Do you even know what it means to 'assume' something?

What I said was not an assumption, it was a suggestion. There's a difference.
Clearly I understand it better than you.

You have presented an alternative version in which you suggest the assumption that he was driving and therefore not drinking. You have made an assumption.
"but he could've driven that night for all you know" is a suggestion to you that he may have been driving. I left the option open.... no assumption. Just an option of him being either the designated driver or drinking. That is not an assumption.

This is an assumption:

"he was clearly drunk and feeling guilty so he turned up at the police station blabbering on 'I've committed an assault office'".

Being in a nightclub doesn't automatically make him drunk, what about if this happened before his first drink, or he was drinking but wasn't drunk? (those are suggestion, just in case you didn't know). It isn't stated in the article about what state he was in, so you assume he was drunk and blabbering.
[quote][p][bold]supermadmax[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]n-unknown[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]supermadmax[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]n-unknown[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]supermadmax[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]n-unknown[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]supermadmax[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]n-unknown[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]supermadmax[/bold] wrote: Should not have handed himself in. He should have spoken to a solicitor first thing the next day where he would have been advised to either no comment or give a version that created enough doubt that he felt in physical danger himself and acted in self defence. Its a shame, in society, when people like the plumber who work full time and stay out of trouble can lose their career and get a record for violence (no emigration for him, no big companies will touch him, it will come out when he uses a references even if they don't run checks..) Where as someone who has been around the block a few times would most likely be able to conceive a set of circumstances leading to a non guilty verdict.[/p][/quote]I can't agree with your opinion. If he handed himself in, then he must've had a guilty conscience. He did wrong, and he is now paying the price for it. If he didn't want to lose his job, he shouldn't of allowed the incident to get physical. No where in the above statement does it say that Perry acted in self defense. Perry admitted the attack which means he may or may have not of instigated the fight, but did not swing for reasons of self defense. Otherwise I am sure that would've been keyed out and Perry's lawyer's main defense tactic in court. Too many people don't care about the consequences before starting, or getting into, a fight these days. This is a prime example.[/p][/quote]" Perry admitted the attack which means he may or may have not of instigated the fight, but did not swing for reasons of self defense. Otherwise I am sure that would've been keyed out and Perry's lawyer's main defense tactic in court." But that the point I'm making, he was clearly drunk and feeling guilty so he turned up at the police station blabbering on "I've committed an assault office" even by the time he got to sober up or speak to a solicitor it was already to late for him to back track. Someone who was more 'experienced' in these things would have stood a very good chance of getting off. He is being penalised for being a law abiding citizen who has no experience with the police & I think that's sad.[/p][/quote]1. Someone with 'experience' (i.e. has done something similar before) would not be a first time offender then, would they? 2. He is being penalised because he physically assaulted someone, which resulted in that person needing surgery to correct his injury. He also suffered permanent damage to his sense of taste and smell. That's why he was taken to court... not because the court felt like it. 3. He can't be a law abiding citizen if he has admitted assaulting someone... how the hell is that abiding by the law? 4. He admitted the attack. There is no mention of alcohol, sobering up, under the influence. Fair enough you can assume this, but he could've driven that night for all you know. It still doesn't add any kind of defense to his case. He admitted it. Stop assuming too much. He shouldn't have got into the fight in the first place, or at least been prepared to face the consequences of his actions (which he did by turning himself in). You're right about too late to back track. It was too late to back track as soon as his fist made connection with Mark Cousins face...[/p][/quote]1. Someone with 'experience' (i.e. has done something similar before) would not be a first time offender then, would they? That's correct & they would stand a much better chance of getting off because they would have a better understanding of the system / process. 2. He is being penalised because he physically assaulted someone, which resulted in that person needing surgery to correct his injury. He also suffered permanent damage to his sense of taste and smell Come on!!! I doubt he was the entirely innocent victim he is being made out to be and prosecution always play up the injuries. 3. He can't be a law abiding citizen if he has admitted assaulting someone... how the hell is that abiding by the law? That's a mute point. What's relevant is that first time offenders have a much higher prospect of being convicted (even if they do often receive a lesser punishment once convicted) 4. He admitted the attack. There is no mention of alcohol Oh Please!!! I think you're the one assuming to much! Someone of previous good charter involved in a late night nightclub altercation!! Its illogical to assume he was sober.[/p][/quote]p.s. there are no assumptions in my comments. Just going by what has been stated in the article. The alcohol thing can go either way just because it hasn't been confirmed in the article.[/p][/quote]"he could've driven that night for all you know" ??? No assumptions hey ?[/p][/quote]Do you even know what it means to 'assume' something? What I said was not an assumption, it was a suggestion. There's a difference.[/p][/quote]Clearly I understand it better than you. You have presented an alternative version in which you suggest the assumption that he was driving and therefore not drinking. You have made an assumption.[/p][/quote]"but he could've driven that night for all you know" is a suggestion to you that he may have been driving. I left the option open.... no assumption. Just an option of him being either the designated driver or drinking. That is not an assumption. This is an assumption: "he was clearly drunk and feeling guilty so he turned up at the police station blabbering on 'I've committed an assault office'". Being in a nightclub doesn't automatically make him drunk, what about if this happened before his first drink, or he was drinking but wasn't drunk? (those are suggestion, just in case you didn't know). It isn't stated in the article about what state he was in, so you assume he was drunk and blabbering. n-unknown
  • Score: 3

4:23pm Wed 9 Jul 14

supermadmax says...

n-unknown wrote:
supermadmax wrote:
n-unknown wrote:
supermadmax wrote:
n-unknown wrote:
supermadmax wrote:
n-unknown wrote:
supermadmax wrote:
n-unknown wrote:
supermadmax wrote:
Should not have handed himself in. He should have spoken to a solicitor first thing the next day where he would have been advised to either no comment or give a version that created enough doubt that he felt in physical danger himself and acted in self defence.

Its a shame, in society, when people like the plumber who work full time and stay out of trouble can lose their career and get a record for violence (no emigration for him, no big companies will touch him, it will come out when he uses a references even if they don't run checks..) Where as someone who has been around the block a few times would most likely be able to conceive a set of circumstances leading to a non guilty verdict.
I can't agree with your opinion. If he handed himself in, then he must've had a guilty conscience.

He did wrong, and he is now paying the price for it. If he didn't want to lose his job, he shouldn't of allowed the incident to get physical. No where in the above statement does it say that Perry acted in self defense. Perry admitted the attack which means he may or may have not of instigated the fight, but did not swing for reasons of self defense. Otherwise I am sure that would've been keyed out and Perry's lawyer's main defense tactic in court.

Too many people don't care about the consequences before starting, or getting into, a fight these days. This is a prime example.
" Perry admitted the attack which means he may or may have not of instigated the fight, but did not swing for reasons of self defense. Otherwise I am sure that would've been keyed out and Perry's lawyer's main defense tactic in court."

But that the point I'm making, he was clearly drunk and feeling guilty so he turned up at the police station blabbering on "I've committed an assault office" even by the time he got to sober up or speak to a solicitor it was already to late for him to back track. Someone who was more 'experienced' in these things would have stood a very good chance of getting off. He is being penalised for being a law abiding citizen who has no experience with the police & I think that's sad.
1. Someone with 'experience' (i.e. has done something similar before) would not be a first time offender then, would they?

2. He is being penalised because he physically assaulted someone, which resulted in that person needing surgery to correct his injury. He also suffered permanent damage to his sense of taste and smell. That's why he was taken to court... not because the court felt like it.

3. He can't be a law abiding citizen if he has admitted assaulting someone... how the hell is that abiding by the law?

4. He admitted the attack. There is no mention of alcohol, sobering up, under the influence. Fair enough you can assume this, but he could've driven that night for all you know. It still doesn't add any kind of defense to his case. He admitted it.

Stop assuming too much. He shouldn't have got into the fight in the first place, or at least been prepared to face the consequences of his actions (which he did by turning himself in).

You're right about too late to back track. It was too late to back track as soon as his fist made connection with Mark Cousins face...
1. Someone with 'experience' (i.e. has done something similar before) would not be a first time offender then, would they?

That's correct & they would stand a much better chance of getting off because they would have a better understanding of the system / process.

2. He is being penalised because he physically assaulted someone, which resulted in that person needing surgery to correct his injury. He also suffered permanent damage to his sense of taste and smell

Come on!!! I doubt he was the entirely innocent victim he is being made out to be and prosecution always play up the injuries.

3. He can't be a law abiding citizen if he has admitted assaulting someone... how the hell is that abiding by the law?

That's a mute point. What's relevant is that first time offenders have a much higher prospect of being convicted (even if they do often receive a lesser punishment once convicted)

4. He admitted the attack. There is no mention of alcohol

Oh Please!!! I think you're the one assuming to much! Someone of previous good charter involved in a late night nightclub altercation!! Its illogical to assume he was sober.
p.s. there are no assumptions in my comments. Just going by what has been stated in the article. The alcohol thing can go either way just because it hasn't been confirmed in the article.
"he could've driven that night for all you know"

??? No assumptions hey ?
Do you even know what it means to 'assume' something?

What I said was not an assumption, it was a suggestion. There's a difference.
Clearly I understand it better than you.

You have presented an alternative version in which you suggest the assumption that he was driving and therefore not drinking. You have made an assumption.
"but he could've driven that night for all you know" is a suggestion to you that he may have been driving. I left the option open.... no assumption. Just an option of him being either the designated driver or drinking. That is not an assumption.

This is an assumption:

"he was clearly drunk and feeling guilty so he turned up at the police station blabbering on 'I've committed an assault office'".

Being in a nightclub doesn't automatically make him drunk, what about if this happened before his first drink, or he was drinking but wasn't drunk? (those are suggestion, just in case you didn't know). It isn't stated in the article about what state he was in, so you assume he was drunk and blabbering.
Fine, you win.
[quote][p][bold]n-unknown[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]supermadmax[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]n-unknown[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]supermadmax[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]n-unknown[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]supermadmax[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]n-unknown[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]supermadmax[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]n-unknown[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]supermadmax[/bold] wrote: Should not have handed himself in. He should have spoken to a solicitor first thing the next day where he would have been advised to either no comment or give a version that created enough doubt that he felt in physical danger himself and acted in self defence. Its a shame, in society, when people like the plumber who work full time and stay out of trouble can lose their career and get a record for violence (no emigration for him, no big companies will touch him, it will come out when he uses a references even if they don't run checks..) Where as someone who has been around the block a few times would most likely be able to conceive a set of circumstances leading to a non guilty verdict.[/p][/quote]I can't agree with your opinion. If he handed himself in, then he must've had a guilty conscience. He did wrong, and he is now paying the price for it. If he didn't want to lose his job, he shouldn't of allowed the incident to get physical. No where in the above statement does it say that Perry acted in self defense. Perry admitted the attack which means he may or may have not of instigated the fight, but did not swing for reasons of self defense. Otherwise I am sure that would've been keyed out and Perry's lawyer's main defense tactic in court. Too many people don't care about the consequences before starting, or getting into, a fight these days. This is a prime example.[/p][/quote]" Perry admitted the attack which means he may or may have not of instigated the fight, but did not swing for reasons of self defense. Otherwise I am sure that would've been keyed out and Perry's lawyer's main defense tactic in court." But that the point I'm making, he was clearly drunk and feeling guilty so he turned up at the police station blabbering on "I've committed an assault office" even by the time he got to sober up or speak to a solicitor it was already to late for him to back track. Someone who was more 'experienced' in these things would have stood a very good chance of getting off. He is being penalised for being a law abiding citizen who has no experience with the police & I think that's sad.[/p][/quote]1. Someone with 'experience' (i.e. has done something similar before) would not be a first time offender then, would they? 2. He is being penalised because he physically assaulted someone, which resulted in that person needing surgery to correct his injury. He also suffered permanent damage to his sense of taste and smell. That's why he was taken to court... not because the court felt like it. 3. He can't be a law abiding citizen if he has admitted assaulting someone... how the hell is that abiding by the law? 4. He admitted the attack. There is no mention of alcohol, sobering up, under the influence. Fair enough you can assume this, but he could've driven that night for all you know. It still doesn't add any kind of defense to his case. He admitted it. Stop assuming too much. He shouldn't have got into the fight in the first place, or at least been prepared to face the consequences of his actions (which he did by turning himself in). You're right about too late to back track. It was too late to back track as soon as his fist made connection with Mark Cousins face...[/p][/quote]1. Someone with 'experience' (i.e. has done something similar before) would not be a first time offender then, would they? That's correct & they would stand a much better chance of getting off because they would have a better understanding of the system / process. 2. He is being penalised because he physically assaulted someone, which resulted in that person needing surgery to correct his injury. He also suffered permanent damage to his sense of taste and smell Come on!!! I doubt he was the entirely innocent victim he is being made out to be and prosecution always play up the injuries. 3. He can't be a law abiding citizen if he has admitted assaulting someone... how the hell is that abiding by the law? That's a mute point. What's relevant is that first time offenders have a much higher prospect of being convicted (even if they do often receive a lesser punishment once convicted) 4. He admitted the attack. There is no mention of alcohol Oh Please!!! I think you're the one assuming to much! Someone of previous good charter involved in a late night nightclub altercation!! Its illogical to assume he was sober.[/p][/quote]p.s. there are no assumptions in my comments. Just going by what has been stated in the article. The alcohol thing can go either way just because it hasn't been confirmed in the article.[/p][/quote]"he could've driven that night for all you know" ??? No assumptions hey ?[/p][/quote]Do you even know what it means to 'assume' something? What I said was not an assumption, it was a suggestion. There's a difference.[/p][/quote]Clearly I understand it better than you. You have presented an alternative version in which you suggest the assumption that he was driving and therefore not drinking. You have made an assumption.[/p][/quote]"but he could've driven that night for all you know" is a suggestion to you that he may have been driving. I left the option open.... no assumption. Just an option of him being either the designated driver or drinking. That is not an assumption. This is an assumption: "he was clearly drunk and feeling guilty so he turned up at the police station blabbering on 'I've committed an assault office'". Being in a nightclub doesn't automatically make him drunk, what about if this happened before his first drink, or he was drinking but wasn't drunk? (those are suggestion, just in case you didn't know). It isn't stated in the article about what state he was in, so you assume he was drunk and blabbering.[/p][/quote]Fine, you win. supermadmax
  • Score: -1

4:38pm Wed 9 Jul 14

Milk Shakespeare says...

I can assure you that nobody won in the above tit for tat. We are all losers thanks to having to trawl through the endless re-quoting and drivel within. YAWN!!
I can assure you that nobody won in the above tit for tat. We are all losers thanks to having to trawl through the endless re-quoting and drivel within. YAWN!! Milk Shakespeare
  • Score: -2

5:21pm Wed 9 Jul 14

ChampKind says...

Hell of a punch for someone who's never been in any trouble before. What is he a boxer, or just never been caught before ?
Hell of a punch for someone who's never been in any trouble before. What is he a boxer, or just never been caught before ? ChampKind
  • Score: 3

10:13pm Wed 9 Jul 14

John Right says...

Two drunks, had a fight, one went running to teacher...
Two drunks, had a fight, one went running to teacher... John Right
  • Score: 2

10:35pm Wed 9 Jul 14

BasildonDond says...

SupermadMax & n-unknown. There's only one way to resolve your difference of opinions. FIGHT !!!! lol
SupermadMax & n-unknown. There's only one way to resolve your difference of opinions. FIGHT !!!! lol BasildonDond
  • Score: 1

3:50pm Tue 15 Jul 14

MrsSmith77 says...

Funny how my previous comment exposing the fact who Mr Cousins really is and what he has done in the past has been removed. Mark Cousins is a know sex offender around Southend and he got what he deserved.
Funny how my previous comment exposing the fact who Mr Cousins really is and what he has done in the past has been removed. Mark Cousins is a know sex offender around Southend and he got what he deserved. MrsSmith77
  • Score: -1

5:54pm Tue 15 Jul 14

jolllyboy says...

This sends the wrong message out to offenders. This was a serious offence.
This sends the wrong message out to offenders. This was a serious offence. jolllyboy
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree