York student fries a hamster

Scroll to see replies

Reply 100

Harley

This is horrible :frown:

Being drunk isn't an excuse.

Reply 101

Midlander

Original post by fire2burn

Doesn't matter if he was 'off his face' it's not a valid excuse. You can't justify being a complete and utter knob by blaming your alcohol intake.

And of course they would still have cared if it were any other animal, doesn't matter if the animal is a cute fluffy hamster or a cow, pig, chicken or sheep they're all still covered by the animal welfare act. And as such it is illegal to cause them unnecessary suffering. The culprit was very lucky that the prosecution were unable determine conclusively if the hamster was alive at the time it was put in the pan, otherwise he'd be facing much stiffer penalties. The animal welfare act allows for fines up to £20,000 and a custodial sentence of up to 6 months in prison.

I'm not saying it excuses it, obviously not. However you can't deny there is an obvious difference in doing that sober and fully aware to being so wasted the idea enters your head.

The judge said that what he did had ruined his previous good character-shows he has made a huge mistake rather than being a general sadist.

This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App

Reply 102

username1012984

I get pretty hungry after a night out, but not enough to fry a hampster. But who knows what's in my kebab with this whole horse scandal...

Reply 103

username474976

Original post by Midlander

It's killing a living thing either way though isn't it? What makes slaughtering a cow for food more acceptable than a horse?

Those calling for savage physical reprisals like permanent crippling or the death penalty are off their heads.

Yes, but there are different degrees. By your logic, killing a human being is no worse than swatting a fly.

Reply 104

Midlander

Original post by maskofsanity

Yes, but there are different degrees. By your logic, killing a human being is no worse than swatting a fly.

I didn't say that and you know it.

This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App

Reply 105

Tortious

Original post by Midlander

"Previous good character" = lack of convictions (and, perhaps, evidence from people who knew him that "he's not like this normally"). It doesn't mean that he's not, as you put it, a "general sadist".

Reply 106

Midlander

Original post by Tortious

"Previous good character" = lack of convictions (and, perhaps, evidence from people who knew him that "he's not like this normally"). It doesn't mean that he's not, as you put it, a "general sadist".

Person does something once and must therefore always have done it-nice.

This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App

Reply 107

Tortious

Original post by Midlander

Person does something once and must therefore always have done it-nice.

This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App

I didn't say that. All I said was essentially that "not guilty" is not the same as innocent.

Reply 108

ruhul555

I don't know which is more disconcerting.

The thought that the cause of death was:
a. from being thrown around or
b. from being fried to death.

Message to Jigsaw - Please feel free to step in at any time.

Reply 109

Midlander

Original post by Tortious

I didn't say that. All I said was essentially that "not guilty" is not the same as innocent.

What's the difference?

This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App

Reply 110

GottaLovePhysics! :)

#unilife

I know lots of people here think the sentence is very small for the crime, but lets not forget its more about what this is going to do to his life. Who wants to hire the kid who fried a hamster? And I wonder what his friends make of him now.

Reply 111

Savana

He's been banned from having pets for 8 years, **** that, should be banned for LIFE! sadistic bastard!

Reply 112

LukeM90

Original post by Wilfred Little

love how you just post the image, photo says it all kinda thing, actually made me burst out laughing,

not cos I think he looks funny, just your response lol, but aye, I think this is the most horrible thing ive heard in a while

Reply 113

sonic_dream

Original post by Midlander

Yes you are...

I've been 'off my face' enough times; many people have been likewise. Never has something as ridiculous as this entered my mind no matter how wasted I was.

It doesn't matter what level of sobriety someone is in, having such an "idea" says something about the sort of person they are, regardless of whether you know them personally or not.

Reply 114

Midlander

Original post by sonic_dream

Nonsense. If that's the case then let's turn up to work steaming drunk every day.

This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App

Reply 115

sugarmouse

Drunk or not, this guy has a character which is capable of inflicting suffering o those who are defenceless, and enjoying it.

What I would do in a room with him. Seriously not the sort of person I would want anywhere near me, children or anybody even slightly more vulnerable than him. What a useless cretin. This is frightening.

Reply 116

Tortious

Original post by Midlander

What's the difference?

This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App

To clarify, I'm not talking about this case any more, but more generally.

"Innocent" means you didn't do it. "Not guilty" means that a jury wasn't satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that you did it. This encompasses "we think you probably did it but the prosecution hasn't shown that you did to the required standard". Apparently in Scotland they have a third possible verdict of "not proven" which overcomes this problem.

Reply 117

abc:)

Absolute prick, we all make stupid mistakes when we're drunk but this was clearly a decision he made, )you don't accidentally fry a hamster) so fault is entirely his no matter how drunk he was. Looks like a knob as well.

Reply 118

la_mariposa

Original post by MirZ

That's incredibly selfish :P just because you happen to be attached to such a cute lil thing and don't want it to die the life of a hamster means more than that of a cow or a pig? They didn't ask for that either.

I mean I'm not saying we should all become vegetarians, because as others have mentioned; I guess it is possible to eat "cruelty free" meat.

However, I don't understand how everyone here suggests to be against animal cruelty while I assume they still buy burgers at supermarkets/fast food chains etc .etc. To say "it's different" is just fooling yourself

Although I like meat I don't eat it for that very reason, I don't agree with the ethics of production. So I think I am the wrong the person to start this argument with. :wink:

BUT I think yes, it is different because the hamster's death was not only absolutely pointless - even the culprit himself doesn't seem to have had much fun while doing it, he can't even remember, if we believe him, if you go for the "killing for personal enjoyment" argument AND it was deeply upsetting disturbing to someone he was most likely close with. Even if you don't care about the animal - bad enough as it is - you'd at least care about your flatmate!? You must certainly be able to see the implications of someone suffering from this. The whole "Well, if we kill cattle, than it is ok to randomly kill other people's pets" just stinks. But I guess we will get nowhere if you really want to keep that stance, I am just glad I and my pet hamsters will never end up living with you. :rolleyes:

Regarding the you're selfish argument, isnt keeping pets always selfish to some degree? You simply can't simulate a real life environment at home, so you could argue animals always suffer to some degree.But, yes, I am selfish, but at least I think my hamsters lead more of a hamster's life than those in little plastic prisons with too small exercise wheels. But the ethics of keepin pets is whole different debate that is not appropriate in this place I believe.

Reply 119

lyrical_lie

Original post by TobaccoSmoke

A chav would have got a prison sentence. But of course, he's a rich **** at a top university, therefore he's not a thug, it was just "hijinks".

Not necessarily. If a ned/chav did this, it would depend on previous history. If they were involved in crimes before hand, similar to this this crime etc. You can't presume. Also where does it say he's rich?

On another note, what an idiot for doing that? He's sick.