https://au.news.yahoo.com/a/30039233/sickening-train-assault-caught-on-cctv/

This disturbing video shows a furious assault on a train passenger at Redfern on New Years Eve after an argument.

The offender got off with a good behaviour bond.

Victim advocate groups say it's part of an alarming trend claiming magistrates are finding reasons to look the other way.

The offender, Luke Santos, is caught on CCTV choking Blake Colbran after being insulted.
He then unleashes a barrage of blows all aimed at the head, 11 punches in total before Santos' friend drags him away, incredibly the victim is still standing.

Do we need to change the law?

I think in this instant (despite the offender's history) the victim should not have shoot his mouth off

I don't advocate violence - but if you are going to shoot your mouth off in public then you are risking being smacked across your chops

Maqqa wrote on Nov 10^th, 2015 at 10:00pm:

Do we need to change the law? I think in this instant (despite the offender's history) the victim should not have shoot his mouth off I don't advocate violence - but if you are going to shoot your mouth off in public then you are risking being smacked across your chops

Is it any different if you shoot your mouth off in private?

Aussie wrote on Nov 10^th, 2015 at 10:02pm:

Maqqa wrote on Nov 10th, 2015 at 10:00pm: Do we need to change the law? I think in this instant (despite the offender's history) the victim should not have shoot his mouth off I don't advocate violence - but if you are going to shoot your mouth off in public then you are risking being smacked across your chops Is it any different if you shoot your mouth off in private?

There is no excuse for attacking someone, but if you shoot your mouth off then you perhaps invite the trouble you get.

Wow, did I see a bit of "victim blame" up there? Seriously.

I like this bit, "incredibly the victim is still standing" yeah? Not so incredible, the perp couldn't throw a punch to bust the skin on custard...

That said, I think the magistrate failed, the degree of damage is not relevant to the intent to cause harm...

Or on the other hand, the Christmas hold would have pulled the bloke up short, no need for courts...

Maqqa wrote on Nov 10^th, 2015 at 9:58pm:

https://au.news.yahoo.com/a/30039233/sickening-train-assault-caught-on-cctv/ This disturbing video shows a furious assault on a train passenger at Redfern on New Years Eve after an argument. The offender got off with a good behaviour bond. Victim advocate groups say it's part of an alarming trend claiming magistrates are finding reasons to look the other way. The offender, Luke Santos, is caught on CCTV choking Blake Colbran after being insulted. He then unleashes a barrage of blows all aimed at the head, 11 punches in total before Santos' friend drags him away, incredibly the victim is still standing.

freemasonic magistrates let other freemasons off ,

its in their oath .

http://www.katesharpleylibrary.net/51c5t6

A wink, a nod, or a shake of the hand: on the Masons
Stuart Christie
The point of a club is not who it lets in, but who it keeps out. The club is based on two ancient British ideas the segregation of classes, and the segregation of sexes: and they even remain insistent on keeping people out, long after they have stopped wanting to come in.
— Anthony Sampson, Anatomy of Britain

If secrecy is to be considered a factor in British politics and commerce then without doubt Freemasonry is one of its principal vehicles. Freemasonry is the largest semi-covert organisation of the western bourgeoisie, with over six million members worldwide sharing a vision of a unified world order bound together through a series of interlocking Masonic alliances. Among the worlds most influential institutions must be the United Grand Lodge of England, the mother lodge of Craft Freemasonry, with its headquarters at Freemasons Hall in Great Queen Street near Covent Garden. It is here that the wealthy and influential members of the British Establishment meet in conditions of ritual secrecy, ostensibly to listen to lectures on Masonic history and to discuss charitable and. other Masonic business. In practice, the Masonic brotherhood constitutes a clandestine network for the defence of the status quo and established privilege, a mutual-aid society for the British ruling class.

Of course just as a mutual-aid society for gaolers will be different in aims and functions from a mutual-aid society for prisoners (one providing clubs and the other hacksaws), so the mutual-aid society of societys privileged power elite will be different from the mutual-aid societies which provide assistance among those whose continued deprivation of the good things in life is the essential condition for the preservation of the privileges of the few.

Since the benefits of privilege as opposed to its outward trappings are necessarily largely hidden, so the efforts, the necessarily combined efforts, of those who would defend their privilege are also hidden; that is to say, they are more than discreet, being secret and even conspiratorial. Indeed we should not really be surprised to find the US historian Carl Oglesby writing in his book The Yankee and Cowboy War :

Clandestinism is not the usage of a handful of rogues, it is a formalised practice of an entire class in which a thousand hands spontaneously join. Conspiracy is the normal continuation of normal politics by normal means.
Freemasonry is one of principal structures that allow the joining of the hands to be a little more than wholly spontaneous.


What Is Freemasonry?

Freemasonry is a particularly British creation which first emerged in the early seventeenth century. Essentially, it consists of three degrees or grades: Entered Apprentice, Fellow Craft Mason and Master Mason. The central theme of all Masonic ritual is the building of Solomons temple and the soap opera incidents surrounding its construction such as the murder of the principal architect Hiram Abiff and the continuing search for the secret of the lost Keystone. The sinister daftness of it all illustrates the essential madness and badness of power elites as well as providing a diversionary spectacle for the curious outsider.

In addition to the three Craft degrees of Freemasonry, which are open to all males who profess a belief in an Almighty Being including Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Roman Catholics (1), etc. there are additional side or Higher degrees such as the Knights Templar (no relation to the original Middle East Task Force) and the Ancient and Accepted (Scottish) Rite 33º, who despite the word Scottish are exclusively White, Anglo-Saxon and Protestant. These side degrees are higher only in the numerical sense, ostensibly, as the Grand Lodge of England practises Freemasonry only within the three Craft degrees and does not admit the existence of any superior Masonic authority. The side degrees are conferred by patronage only on a specially approved and strictly limited number of candidates totalling at most a few hundred brothers, all drawn exclusively from the intimate friendship circles of the British ruling class.

The top three degrees of 33º Freemasonry are themselves conferred only after a unanimous vote of approval by the Supreme Council 33 of the Ancient and Accepted Rite of Freemasonry, which itself is recruited, incestuously, from among the Grand Officers or Past Grand Officers of the Grand Lodge of England. The headquarters of this inner Masonic organisation is the Grand Temple of the Rose Croix

Maqqa wrote on Nov 10^th, 2015 at 10:00pm:

Do we need to change the law? I think in this instant (despite the offender's history) the victim should not have shoot his mouth off I don't advocate violence - but if you are going to shoot your mouth off in public then you are risking being smacked across your chops

hummmmmmm really?..

so some violence is acceptable then?????.....

I for one am fed up with the sentences being dished out these days.....its insulting in some cases...its like saying well you shouldnt have been on the streets after 10pm.....HUH!...

our system is broken no doubt about that...luckily we now have cameras all over the place so they at least  can be a deterrent but at the end of the day the courts are a joke....why cant these persons have home detention??... I am not saying thats great but at least they lose some freedom...

Maqqa wrote on Nov 10^th, 2015 at 10:00pm:

Do we need to change the law? I think in this instant (despite the offender's history) the victim should not have shoot his mouth off I don't advocate violence - but if you are going to shoot your mouth off in public then you are risking being smacked across your chops

I don't think that should have any impact on sentencing though.

Kytro wrote on Nov 11^th, 2015 at 7:44am:

Maqqa wrote on Nov 10th, 2015 at 10:00pm: Do we need to change the law? I think in this instant (despite the offender's history) the victim should not have shoot his mouth off I don't advocate violence - but if you are going to shoot your mouth off in public then you are risking being smacked across your chops I don't think that should have any impact on sentencing though.

Maybe the fact that the victim took so many hits without serious damage did....

Downe at Ye Olde Courte House:-

"Felonious Monk - you are charged with assault with a deadly weapon, to wit, your fist!  How do you plead?"

"Not guilty, you big p00f!  I can't hit worth a dog turd.... and he was a beast to me!"

"Guilty then, but with soft fists... I'd slap your wrist but it might hurt you too much.  Next case!"

I think he did right, because he has access to far more information about the case than anyone on here does.

Kytro wrote on Nov 11^th, 2015 at 7:44am:

Maqqa wrote on Nov 10th, 2015 at 10:00pm: Do we need to change the law? I think in this instant (despite the offender's history) the victim should not have shoot his mouth off I don't advocate violence - but if you are going to shoot your mouth off in public then you are risking being smacked across your chops I don't think that should have any impact on sentencing though.

Provocation is sometimes considered in sentencing. I don't know the details in this case, but it certainly is a mitigating factor in sentencing.

mariacostel wrote on Nov 11^th, 2015 at 8:54am:

Kytro wrote on Nov 11th, 2015 at 7:44am: Maqqa wrote on Nov 10th, 2015 at 10:00pm: Do we need to change the law? I think in this instant (despite the offender's history) the victim should not have shoot his mouth off I don't advocate violence - but if you are going to shoot your mouth off in public then you are risking being smacked across your chops I don't think that should have any impact on sentencing though. Provocation is sometimes considered in sentencing. I don't know the details in this case, but it certainly is a mitigating factor in sentencing.

This is one of those things I'm torn on. I don't think "not being able to control your anger" is good reason for a lesser sentence, but it's also real thing that affects people.

On balance I'd say it's something should be considered, but must be addressed as part of sentencing.

Kytro wrote on Nov 11^th, 2015 at 9:25am:

mariacostel wrote on Nov 11th, 2015 at 8:54am: Kytro wrote on Nov 11th, 2015 at 7:44am: Maqqa wrote on Nov 10th, 2015 at 10:00pm: Do we need to change the law? I think in this instant (despite the offender's history) the victim should not have shoot his mouth off I don't advocate violence - but if you are going to shoot your mouth off in public then you are risking being smacked across your chops I don't think that should have any impact on sentencing though. Provocation is sometimes considered in sentencing. I don't know the details in this case, but it certainly is a mitigating factor in sentencing. This is one of those things I'm torn on. I don't think "not being able to control your anger" is good reason for a lesser sentence, but it's also real thing that affects people. On balance I'd say it's something should be considered, but must be addressed as part of sentencing.

Say someone mouths off at your wife in a particularly vile way and is generally offensive like that.  When you punch him in the face to shut him up do you expect to get a discount on your sentence?

mariacostel wrote on Nov 11^th, 2015 at 11:39am:

Say someone mouths off at your wife in a particularly vile way and is generally offensive like that.  When you punch him in the face to shut him up do you expect to get a discount on your sentence?

I expect to be sent to anger management classes, but I'm not generally an aggressive person. We would likely give them a weird look and continue on our way.

Kytro wrote on Nov 11^th, 2015 at 11:42am:

mariacostel wrote on Nov 11th, 2015 at 11:39am: Say someone mouths off at your wife in a particularly vile way and is generally offensive like that.  When you punch him in the face to shut him up do you expect to get a discount on your sentence? I expect to be sent to anger management classes, but I'm not generally an aggressive person. We would likely give them a weird look and continue on our way.

This is where I tell you that how YOU react and think, doesn't determine how others do so.  Most people can only be pushed so far because they respond.

he got it right ... the bloke asked for it. Next time he'll shut up and wait for his stop like everyone else.

mariacostel wrote on Nov 11^th, 2015 at 2:24pm:

Kytro wrote on Nov 11th, 2015 at 11:42am: mariacostel wrote on Nov 11th, 2015 at 11:39am: Say someone mouths off at your wife in a particularly vile way and is generally offensive like that.  When you punch him in the face to shut him up do you expect to get a discount on your sentence? I expect to be sent to anger management classes, but I'm not generally an aggressive person. We would likely give them a weird look and continue on our way. This is where I tell you that how YOU react and think, doesn't determine how others do so.  Most people can only be pushed so far because they respond.

Of course not. That does not mean we accept the behaviour though, as it causes problems for society when people us violence to solve their problems most of the time. People can learn to manage their anger, if they want to do so.