Charlie Alliston’s new head tattoo [a  ‘trophy’(?)]

A couple of weeks ago, a post here outlined how lying Charlie Alliston had in February 2016, become the unrepentant killer of a mother of two by smashing into her at 18 miles an hour with his ‘illegal’ bicycle at lunchtime on a central London busy street, after he admittedly had refused to even try to slow or brake to avoid a collision after shouting and swearing at pedestrians to get out of the way. The collision resulted in the poor woman suffering irrecoverable brain injuries, and while she lay dying in a hospital bed, the perpetrator was abusing & denigrating her on social media.

The view was expressed in the post that our broken criminal scales of justice would allow Alliston, an uncaring, callous young man who doesn’t give a damn about anything, to escape justice – and so it turned out to be with a vengeance, last Monday at the Old Bailey, when he returned from bail for sentencing, didn’t it?

Yes, not only did he NOT get the derisory light but full MAXIMUM sentence of 2 YEARS JAIL for the unjustified killing, but he escaped jail ALTOGETHER, didn’t he? Oh yes, despite the Judge describing him as “an accident waiting to happen” and “the victim could have been any pedestrian”, he got only 18 MONTHS [despite pleading NOT GUILTY which should have invoked a penalty], but NOT in a real prison though, but instead in just a YOUNG OFFENDERS INSTITUTION, no less?

Oh yes, that might be indeed a ‘custodial sentence’ [just?] as originally signalled and indicated by the Judge following Alliston’s trial conviction of causing bodily harm through wanton and furious driving, but it hardly reflects justice either for pedestrian Kim Briggs who he killed, nor her grieving family, nor provides an adequate punishment for a young adult who will NOT be rehabilitated by it, don’t you think?

So did you buy the FALSE newspaper headings like “Charlie Alliston: Cyclist who killed mother-of-two in Old Street crash sentenced to 18 months behind bars”

Well, that is certainly NOT the case, is it? No, you see he will be anything BUT be behind bars, as the significant thing about young offender institutions, is that they are nothing like adult prisons at all.

Those held there can be as young as 15 years of age (although it can include people up to 21 but they don’t mix with under 18s), so basically they are places that are geared-up to treat all there with kid gloves, so with nothing scary going on – no one thrown straight into a locked &  barred steel cell or anything like that you see, but the place is instead staffed with ‘supervisors’ (not custodial prison officers) for the inmates to confide in if they need, eh?

Well, the convicted do have to wear prison clothes (probably not designer though, which will be upsetting for Alliston, no doubt?), but he is allowed to wear his own trainers or shoes if he chooses.

Also he will be allowed to smoke if he wants to, and certainly he won’t be banged-up all day at all, just be in and out of his room [with its TV, kettle, toilet, sink, DVD player, games console, eh?], getting free education or skills training, with evenings spent chatting with others, or in the gym, or phoning family and friends with his allowance [he will be able to get money by going to lessons, or people can send him money to use as phone credit].

He will be allowed a couple of visits from family and friends every month as well naturally. Standard meal type food with a choice of menu is of course freely supplied, but by using earned money, even that can be supplemented by buying other snacky things including sweets, for personal enjoyment in his room.

Sounds more like a good life, rather than a hard lesson with harsh punishment, wouldn’t you say?

Not only that of course, but fixed wheel track bike with no front brakes enthusiast and young thrill-seeker, Alliston won’t actually even be there in that cushy life for that year and a half will he? No, he will be skipping out of the institution’s doors in just nine months time on license, because that is the mad way the do-gooders have manipulated the criminal system and discouraged society from building and staffing enough places of containment for the increasing band of criminals this Country is creating or letting in.

This wayward 20-year-old was actually acquitted of manslaughter, which would have invoked a ‘proper & appropriate sentence in relation to the death of Mrs Briggs, wouldn’t it? Now, exactly why he got away with that was and is a mystery to most of us laypeople, as his actions to all intent and purposes seem to have fully met the published criteria for that offence (and certainly the legal eagles of the Crown Prosecution Service believed that to) – obviously his smart-arsed Queens Council barrister (we will certainly have paid for?) persuaded the Jury otherwise, unfortunately?

“Obstinately sure of himself”, school dropout, Alliston’s insensitivity and callousness shown to the consequences of his actions, are fully demonstrated by him having had a tattoo of a blood crying skull done AFTER he had killed Mrs Briggs, and even followed-up that with his Court evidence by cruelly recounting that his girlfriend had told him to “go and kill a half hour” –NOT the right thing for an accused to report to the Court in explanatory mitigation, when he had went out and ‘killed’ someone, surely?

Amongst the many porkies that Alliston told (or had told for him) at his trial, was that he had spent eight months no less working as a courier cyclist in London, making up to 20 deliveries a day. Apparently this was said under oath to pretend to and convince the Jury, that he was an experienced and skilled professional London streets ‘bike rider’, so obviously the collision with a pedestrian crossing the road in his path was solely her fault and there was nothing that he, as someone well able to control the bike safely, could have done to avoid it, eh?

The real truth was that of the 3 companies he ‘claimed’ to have worked extensively for, one didn’t exist, at another he spent only 1 day, and at the other just a week. Now why that misleading untruth didn’t get exposed at his trial, goodness only knows, but after his trial, it took the Daily Mail national newspaper to uncover the real facts and report them to the authorities, didn’t it?

Was THAT the BIG lie that got him acquitted of manslaughter of Kim Briggs, do you think? Well, we will never know about that, BUT it does seem quite possible that he will face a perjury charge over this subterfuges and certainly he should – even his sentence for the charge he was convicted-off didn’t reflect that false swearing, did it?

Don’t hold your breath though, will you? In our crime indulgent society, he will get away with it, as the do-gooders will claim that it is not in the public interst, won’t they? Mustn’t upset a lying good for nothing waster of a twenty year old killer before he has his 21^st Birthday Bash perhaps, you see?

[The offence of perjury, created under the Perjury Act 1911, carries a maximum penalty of seven years’ imprisonment or a fine, or both]