75ZT Community

It has happened again.

Two men were in a colleague's Court this morning charged with arson with intent to endanger life.

Indictable only offence so sent straight to Crown Court without taking a plea but the prosecutor outlined the case wherein the two defendants claimed to be "doing what the law should have"

The victims are a family of two parents and two young children.

"He's a ****ing peedo (sic) isn't he?" one of them was reported to have said.

When the interviewing officer explained that the householder was, in fact a paediatrician, the reply was, apparently a shrug of the shoulders and:-

"What's the difference?"

I seem to recall a similar tale some time back Paul, only that time it was someone daubing graffiti on a paediatrician's home? Is arson still regarded as seriously as it was? In other words are they likely to receive a substantial custodial sentence?

Gary M.

Teachers really need to use pictures and not words as these yobs favourite newspaper does.

Borg Warner wrote:I seem to recall a similar tale some time back Paul, only that time it was someone daubing graffiti on a paediatrician's home? Is arson still regarded as seriously as it was? In other words are they likely to receive a substantial custodial sentence?

Gary M.

It's certainly not the first time Gary.

Arson with intent to endanger life is a separate charge to arson and as I said it is indictable only. Not intending to second guess the Judge's decision but based upon what I've heard they are likely to get 12 years each.

In 12 years, sorry 6 years with good behaviour they may be able to develop a better understanding of the English language during their rehabilitation - or maybe become a member of the Greek cabinet