They Stomped A Gay Man To Death In The Middle Of Trafalgar Square, And All They Got Was 7 Years?

Having last month been declared guilty of manslaughter in the “fucking faggot”-infused Trafalgar Square fatal beating of 62-year-old gay man Ian Baynham, Joel Alexander, 20, and Ruby Thomas, 19, will serve six and seven years, respectively. After Alexander sent Baynham to the ground in the September 2009 late night beating, Thomas joined in kicking him as he lay unconscious; he died in the hospital sixteen days later. Enjoy prison, you lousy shits. You got off easy.

Get Queerty Daily

Subscribe to Queerty for a daily dose of #britain #crime #gaybashing stories and more


  • tallskin2

    Yeah, it’s an outrageous sentence for murder.

  • jason

    Can someone appeal this inadequate sentence? Both of them should be in the slammer for life. I’d like them to share a cell with known rapists.

  • kayla

    This is what happens when you take away the death penalty, sentences for murder become lighter and lighter…..I saw a documentary about a young man, in France, who was beaten unconscious and then thrown into a pond by a gang of gay bashers, he drowned. They got the same sort of light sentencing……Human life becomes quite devalued under the law when the death penalty is taken off the table….very progressive indeed………

  • kayla

    Manslaughter for stomping someone to death…? Compare this sentence to the recent gay bashers in the U.S. who didn’t even kill their victims……..There ARE some things America does better…just saying…They should have done this crap in Texas. Even in that conservative state, they would have gotten their just desserts, if only because Texans have never missed an opportunity for a good ol’ fashioned execution.

  • Oh boy

    That is typical for Britain. The UK is notoriously soft on criminals.

    I agree with Kayla. There are some things the US does better. Like punishing criminals.

    Liberal is not always best, especially when it comes to punishing crimes.

  • Goodnight Moon

    i’m american, have lived in the UK for 10 years.

    they are so fucking soft on murder in this country it beggars belief.

  • David

    Well it wasn’t a premeditated murder, and she was more of a participant, rather than the instigator. Inadequate as that sounds. That is the way the law works.

    She’ll be in jail for several years.

    It’s not enough. But justice has been served.

  • malcanoid

    But UK murder rates are still far below those in the US. I wonder why? Is it just because of the gun laws? Or is the UK just less violent and being less vengeful is a feature of that? We want no death penalty here thank you and I am glad to see that the export from the UK to the US of a drug commonly used in US lethal injections has recently been banned.

    These little shits are guilty of manslaughter and not of murder so several of the above comments are very wide of the mark.

  • Nathan

    I think the sentences in the US are more revenge then justice, but I do think we need to have longer sentences over here. 7 years is ridiculous.

  • hephaestion

    Prison terms are much much shorter in all civilized nations than they are in the US, and crime is lower in those countries where they don’t rob criminals of any hope for redemption & changing their ways. Longer prison terms creates more criminals and more dangerous criminals.

  • kayla

    @hephaestion: Sorry to say…But I’m calling bullshit on your analysis….I’m not denying that America has a higher crime rate…What I’m disputing is the idea that our (justifiably) harsher punishments is the cause for this…. Perhaps it has something to do with the fact that we have an incorrigible underclass (who commit most of the crimes)….a (generally) more diverse population…..etc…etc….etc.. I don’t think the death penalty or threat of it is causing people to commit crimes…Nor do I think if we had lighter sentences the thugs now incarcerated would miraculously reenter society as changed souls….NO. If you take a human life, I have absolutely no problems allowing the state to kill you in return…or at the very least put you away for many a decades…..I guess I’m completely pro vengeance….It’s all those Old Testament Bible lessons I had to sit through, I guess…..

  • Xtincta

    People who keep saying the U.S. always gives harsh sentencing are deluding themselves. Plenty of gay bashers have gotten off lightly and have even been posted on this site.

  • David

    I’ll remind you that Dan White murdered the Mayor of San Fransisco and the first openly gay city councilor in that city and got off very lightly. It was almost as if the legal system was saying, “Well, it’s okay if you murder a straight person as long as you kill a gay person at the same time.”

    The US legal system is in no way a model for anyplace. It is so focused on retribution that our prisons have turned into factories for turning out increasingly violent offenders. When you dehumanize someone, you tend to end up with someone who is… well, less humane.

    That said, this sentence seems awfully light. It may not have been premeditated murder, but 7 years seems very slight for the commission of an incredibly violent act that clearly was a hate crime. (And, yes, I support enhanced sentencing for hate crimes.)

    Does anyone have a clue why the sentence was so light? Would it have been the same if, say, the victim had been an elderly (straight) lady?

  • Robbie K

    Here eyes read as pure evil.

  • Mike in London UK

    Here in the UK we don’t kill people for committing crimes, regardless of what they may have done, sometimes mistakes are made, and you can’t bring and innocent person back from the dead.

    The plaintiffs were tried for voluntary manslaughter, what (i believe) the USA would count as “murder in the second degree”, or even “murder in the third degree” depending on the understanding of the actual intent.

    The Homicide Act sets out three defences that reduce murder to voluntary manslaughter; suicide pacts; diminished and provocation .

    As I understand the case, the “diminished responsibility” partial defence was used.

    The Sentencing Manual states

    [exceptions for hospitalisation then] In such cases the judge should pass a determinate sentence of imprisonment, the length of which will depend on two factors: his assessment of the degree of the accused’s responsibility his view as to the period of time, if any, which the accused will continue to be danger to the public.

    Therefore it was the JUDGE who gave the sentence. Its now up to the CROWN (the prosecutor) to object to this duration and seek a review.

    I am NOT condoning what they did, it was a cowardly attack by three drunken fuckups on a middle aged guy, and personally they should have gone down for a lot longer than they did, however I did think I should explain the UK legal system for those who are used to the US system.

  • Mike in London UK

    oh .. and the US FEDERAL mandatory sentencing for SECOND DEGREE MURDER is “Imprisonment for life or any term.”

    So the US and UK have equal sentencing guidelines, its the discretion fo the JUDGE to set the sentence accordingly.

  • Jesse

    I’d like to know, why they were found guilty only of Manslaughter?
    They were clear-thinking enough in their court case to know they had too much alcohol in their bodies… So how is the intent any different? They knew what they were doing, yet only manslaughter was the charge they were given…
    In Australia, murder carries a mandatory life sentence, and I’m sure it’s very similar in the UK. I get angry that little tossers like this are easy to get away with such a light sentence. And what’s the bet, they’ll be out in 3 – 3 1/2 years if they behave themselves and don’t stomp anyone to death in their prison.. UGH.. Oxygen Thieves.

  • Mike in London UK


    Presumably they were found guilty of voluntary manslaughter (by way of diminished responsibility) because thats what they were charged with.

    The CPS (Crown Prosecution Service – the branch of the government service that handles criminal prosecutions) may have assessed the case and determined that they did not commit MURDER.

    You need to read carefully the UK legal definitions of MURDER and MANSLAUGHTER (both vountary and involuntary) to understand why they were charged with (and found guilty of) the specific charge.

    However, in the simplest form however (and this is REALLY simplifying it so the legal bods here please note this) the difference is, did they go there and commit the assualt with the intention of committing a killing or not?

    The CPS did not have any indication that they had gone there to commit the specific crime, and other evidence showed that they had attempted to start fights with other people.

    If the CPS had put them up for MURDER then the defence team would have been able to show that this was not the case.

    Apparently part of their sentencing includes time for committing a “hate crime”.

  • Nathan

    Actually research has shown time and again that harsher punishments lead only to higher costs and higher rates of recidivism. Rehabilitation is the most effective goal for a prison system to have in mind, but anyone who thinks objectively instead of with their emotions already realizes that. Death penalty has no effect in reducing crime, as no rational thinking person commits a crime thinking they’ll get got so the supposed deterrent effect of the death penalty is hogwash, plain and simple.

  • Oh boy

    Hey Nathan. Talk about rehabilitation to the parents who have had children die at the hands of repeat sex offenders, like those two young women in San Diego a few years ago.

    It is like Judge Judy says – no matter how well-intentioned some might be, as a society we have to realize that some people are just beyong rehabilitation.

    And to the people who keep saying that UK crime rates are so much lower than the US, the US also has millions and millions more people. The UK has a huge problem with binge drinkers and violence for the size of a country that it is.

    Last – no one is telling the UK that they have to have the death penalty. But at the very least, they could put their violent offenders and murderers away for a few more years than they do.

    The sentences there are a joke. Call it manslaughter, call it whatever you want. They robbed somebody else of their life and his family and loved ones have to live with that forever.

    Last – stiff sentences are not just about “revenge.” They are about atonement. They are about justice. They are about respect for the victims. They are about sending a message that life is sacred and not something to take like a candy bar from a corner store.

    One more thing – there is the argument that physical suffering extends beyond the direct victims. Family members of those who have died have also died earlier deaths indirectly due to anxiety, depression, post traumatic stress, and other physical conditions. Siblings of murder victims have repeatedly testified to the fact they noticed stark physical deterioration in their parents after the fact.

    It extends so much further than court terminology and the actual act of violence.

    What surprises me so much about the British is they get so sanctimonious and self-righteous about not having the death penalty. Considering how secular they have become and how so many have turned their backs on the church, it is the one thing they seem to get holier-than-thou about.

    Yet they have such a hard time putting themselves in the victims footsteps and victims family’s pain.

Comments are closed.