Spinning a brutal assault in Manchester
JOSEPH O’Reilly was attacked in Manchester City centre by Daniel Chrapkowski, Thomas Lane and Oliver O’Neill. The victim, who was out on a night with his girlfriend, had asked them why they kicking over bins. They responded by beating him up so that he suffered bleeding on the brain, had a metal plate fitted to his face and spent one month in hospital.
The matter came before Manchester Crown Court. The court heard that Oliver O’Neill has earlier beaten up Daniel Ruggerio, a 26-year-old chef, who had intervened when he saw O’Neill and “two pals abusing a worker”. Only the Manchester Evening News reports the details:
Mr Ruggerio tried to calm the situation, but when he left the store O’Neill punched him to the floor before kicking him four times in the head. Samuel Kamdem, the security guard, told police, ‘I thought he was going to kill him’.
While on bail for that, O’Neill and his two associates attacked Joseph O’Reilly.
Joseph O’Reilly was punched and kicked the victim in the stomach before O’Neill kicked him in the face as he lay helpless. Two pals who joined him in the second attack, Daniel Chrapowski and Thomas Lane, have been spared jail.
Chrapowski, 24, of Totnes Avenue, Bramhall admitted a charge of grievous bodily harm and was given a 12-month suspended sentence. He will be electronically tagged for two months and perform 160 hours unpaid work. Lane, also of Offerton, admitted affray and was given a community order for 12 months, ordered to complete 120 hours unpaid, abide by a curfew and pay £250 costs.
So. How is that reported in the national press? Well:
“Thugs 1 Justice 0 Yob pair who beat man and left him for dead celebrate wildly outside court after escaping jail” – Daily Mail
“Bramhall thug jailed for attacks on Good Samaritans near Piccadilly station” – Manchester Evening News
“Callous yob in jail dodge celebration – Thug who left man unconscious walks free” – The Sun (front page)
The Manchester Evening News focuses on the successful conviction but omits to mention Mr O’Reilly’s injuries. The Mail does not mention O’Neill’s previous conviction until 11 paragraphs into its story. For the Sun, the wait is 12 paragraphs.
Mr O’Reilly is quoted in the Mail, the Sun and the Telegraph, but not in the MEN:
“I’m really frustrated about them being let off by the courts. It just makes my blood boil to think that they were rejoicing when they came out of court. It’s as if they’ve just been let off their crime and they haven’t been punished at all – yet I’ve had to serve my own sentence because of my injuries. One of the men was sent to jail so I don’t see why the others shouldn’t have been jailed with him. They were all in it together.
“The fact they were celebrating proves they themselves assumed they were gong to go to jail – yet the judge just let them go. I just cannot believe the way they are behaving. One of them looks as if he has just won an award not escaped prison for a vicious beating. The other one looks like he doesn’t give two hoots about what happened. These two men are a disgrace.”
Which is any of the papers gave the truest representation of the facts..?
Posted: 18th, January 2012 | In: Reviews Comments (2) | TrackBack | Permalink
