Come on Amy – let’s scrap these restorative justice rules instead of waiting to see if they work

No, not all judges get it right – certainly not nearly as often as Alf would like.

But when it comes to who should decide when a cup of tea and a cosy chat is an appropriate way of sorting things out between victim and offender, we politicians seem to have seriously stuffed things up in June last year when we tinkered with the Sentencing Act.

We gave the job of deciding restorative justice is the way to go in a case to a touchy feely bunch of tossers who happen to be the providers of the restorative justice process that will be followed whenever someone pleads guilty.

It’s a bit like legislatively deciding that ice-cream vendors should decide when people should be required to eat ice-cream, then sending the bill to the taxpayers.

What a joke.

A bolt from the blue did Moomoo a mischief but the culprit has been allowed to remain unnamed

Enough to give a moggy a piercing headache…

Alf is disappointed by a judge’s ruling that an 18-year-old who shot a crossbow bolt through a cat’s head should not be named.

The tosser would suffer “extreme hardship” if his name was ever to be published, the judge decreed.

And what – pray -did the poor bloody cat suffer?

The Herald reports that The Wainuiomata teenager was charged with ill-treating an animal under the Animal Welfare Act after the incident last October.

But the justice system has gone all soft and pappy and the charge was withdrawn this month after he completed court-ordered tasks and police granted diversion.