Man hit woman who called him a paedophile

Published Date: 22 July 2008
By Freelance

A twenty-four years old man who admitted striking a woman who called
him a paedophile outside a bar in the Rosemount area of Derry earlier
this year was yesterday given a conditional discharge for six months
at the local Magistrate's Court.
Jonathan Taylor, of Cornshell Fields, pleaded guilty to assaulting the
woman on January 1 last.

District Judge Harry Coll was told that the defendant and the woman
had been drinking in the Village Inn where the two of them had
exchanged words. The defendant met the woman after he left the
premises to go to his cousin’s house.

“More words were exchanged; she called him a paedophile and he took
exception to that,” a prosecution lawyer told the court. “He struck
the injured party who sustained a swollen nose and bruising to her
face,” he added.

Mr. Coll said he wasn’t surprised that the defendant had taken
exception to being called a paedophile but he criticised him for
hitting the woman.

http://www.derryjournal.com/journal/...led.4309723.jp

*****
WM
www.critest.com

Perhaps we should rename this group uk.legal.paedo

On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 05:39:17 -0700 (PDT), Webmanager_CritEst
wrote:

Man hit woman who called him a paedophile

snip

Mr. Coll said he wasn’t surprised that the defendant had taken
exception to being called a paedophile but he criticised him for
hitting the woman.


That doesn't seem particularly newsworthy to me.

Man is insulted and provoked. Assaults person who insulted him causing
ABH, and is convicted of assault, with close to the minimum sentence
for such an offence (presumably the provocation being considered a
mitigating factor).

Happens every day, and the fact that the specific insult was to call
him a paedophile seems of only very minor interest.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
I went to the Net and all I got was this stupid tagline.
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom

On Jul 22, 9:50 pm, Alex Heney wrote:
On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 05:39:17 -0700 (PDT), Webmanager_CritEst

wrote:
Man hit woman who called him a paedophile

snip

Mr. Coll said he wasn’t surprised that the defendant had taken
exception to being called a paedophile but he criticised him for
hitting the woman.

That doesn't seem particularly newsworthy to me.

Man is insulted and provoked. Assaults person who insulted him causing
ABH, and is convicted of assault, with close to the minimum sentence
for such an offence (presumably the provocation being considered a
mitigating factor).

Happens every day, and the fact that the specific insult was to call
him a paedophile seems of only very minor interest.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
I went to the Net and all I got was this stupid tagline.
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom

You think?

"Mr. Coll said he wasn’t surprised that the defendant had taken
exception to being called a paedophile but he criticised him for
hitting the woman. "

Why would someone take exception to being called a 'paedophile' and
why would that warrant some kind of mitigation?

Would one be so offended if they were called a 'depressive' or 'broken-
legged'?

WM

On Jul 22, 6:36 pm, allan tracy wrote:
Perhaps we should rename this group uk.legal.paedo

That would be silly - it would be unrepresentative.

WM

Webmanager_CritEst wrote:
On Jul 22, 9:50 pm, Alex Heney wrote:
On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 05:39:17 -0700 (PDT), Webmanager_CritEst

wrote:
Man hit woman who called him a paedophile

snip

Mr. Coll said he wasn’t surprised that the defendant had taken
exception to being called a paedophile but he criticised him for
hitting the woman.

That doesn't seem particularly newsworthy to me.

Man is insulted and provoked. Assaults person who insulted him
causing ABH, and is convicted of assault, with close to the minimum
sentence for such an offence (presumably the provocation being
considered a mitigating factor).

Happens every day, and the fact that the specific insult was to call
him a paedophile seems of only very minor interest.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
I went to the Net and all I got was this stupid tagline.
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom

You think?

"Mr. Coll said he wasn’t surprised that the defendant had taken
exception to being called a paedophile but he criticised him for
hitting the woman. "

Why would someone take exception to being called a 'paedophile' and
why would that warrant some kind of mitigation?

That's easy. It is a huge stigma to be labelled as a paedophile - the
merest suggestion that a person is a paedophile would be enough to cause
bystanders to inflict physical violence upon them.

Whether or not the insult was justified, it must warrant mitigation just as
if the insult had been "Thief!".



Would one be so offended if they were called a 'depressive' or
'broken- legged'?

No, I really don't think so.

On Jul 23, 10:53 am, "The Todal" wrote:
Webmanager_CritEst wrote:
On Jul 22, 9:50 pm, Alex Heney wrote:
On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 05:39:17 -0700 (PDT), Webmanager_CritEst

wrote:
Man hit woman who called him a paedophile

snip

Mr. Coll said he wasn’t surprised that the defendant had taken
exception to being called a paedophile but he criticised him for
hitting the woman.

That doesn't seem particularly newsworthy to me.

Man is insulted and provoked. Assaults person who insulted him
causing ABH, and is convicted of assault, with close to the minimum
sentence for such an offence (presumably the provocation being
considered a mitigating factor).

Happens every day, and the fact that the specific insult was to call
him a paedophile seems of only very minor interest.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
I went to the Net and all I got was this stupid tagline.
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom

You think?

"Mr. Coll said he wasn’t surprised that the defendant had taken
exception to being called a paedophile but he criticised him for
hitting the woman. "

Why would someone take exception to being called a 'paedophile' and
why would that warrant some kind of mitigation?

That's easy. It is a huge stigma to be labelled as a paedophile - the
merest suggestion that a person is a paedophile would be enough to cause
bystanders to inflict physical violence upon them.

Whether or not the insult was justified, it must warrant mitigation just as
if the insult had been "Thief!".



Would one be so offended if they were called a 'depressive' or
'broken- legged'?

No, I really don't think so.

Indeed.

Now think on.

WM

Webmanager_CritEst wrote:
On Jul 23, 10:53 am, "The Todal" wrote:

No, I really don't think so.

Indeed.

Now think on.

Thank you, but I can do that without your permission.

I think we can all safely assume that it will never, ever, be socially
acceptable to be a paedophile. Those who are paedophiles must keep their
yearnings a secret.

And I think that's for the best.

On Jul 23, 2:33 pm, "The Todal" wrote:
Webmanager_CritEst wrote:
On Jul 23, 10:53 am, "The Todal" wrote:

No, I really don't think so.

Indeed.

Now think on.

Thank you, but I can do that without your permission.

I think we can all safely assume that it will never, ever, be socially
acceptable to be a paedophile. Those who are paedophiles must keep their
yearnings a secret.

And I think that's for the best.

It is socially-accepted. You seem to be ignorant of this fact.

WM

On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 14:33:34 +0100, "The Todal"
wrote:

I think we can all safely assume that it will never, ever, be socially
acceptable to be a paedophile. Those who are paedophiles must keep their
yearnings a secret.

And I think that's for the best.

So you think it best that a person who has a condition that they did
not want and has no control over should live a lie or be a social
outcast? Do you feel the same way about any other condition that a
person is born with? Epilepsy, perhaps, which was at one time a
similarly unacceptable condition.

Do you not believe it better if the person could be open and honest
about his condition and receive help to prevent it causing harm? Or
maybe epileptics would be better off living a lie and pretending to
others that they don't have the condition. Living in constant denial
and maybe proving their normality by becoming bus drivers or airline
pilots rather than being helped to control their condition and live in
a way that is unlikely to present a danger to others?

--
Cynic