antony1969 Posted December 8, 2017 Share Posted December 8, 2017 Wow ... He fled from Somalia to Italy and the ended up here in blighty to inflict his sickening ways on an innocent young woman ... http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5157727/Refugee-jailed-nine-years-attempted-rape.html ... Join the long list Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
teflon2 Posted December 8, 2017 Share Posted December 8, 2017 What concerns me is how these "people"? finance their appeals, is it perhaps the no win no fee bottom feeding law sharks grabbing a large slice of the pie. I know I would not be able to finance an appeal in the courts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pelmetman Posted December 9, 2017 Share Posted December 9, 2017 Violet1956 - 2017-12-07 4:51 PM pelmetman - 2017-12-07 4:19 PM Violet1956 - 2017-12-07 3:41 PM pelmetman - 2017-12-07 8:39 AM http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5150963/African-refugee-jailed-sex-attacks-wins-110-000.html Come on then you defenders of the indefensible........tell me again why? >:-( ....... This is no apology for his behaviour or the apparent injustice that he should get such a sum when his victims are not likely to have received the same. It is merely my attempt to explain what has caused this situation as far as is possible to tell from the facts presented. Explaining the system is the same as apologising for it in my book :-| ........ If those at the top are incapable of seeing how wrong it is.......then frankly they need to dance the Mussolini from the nearest lamp post >:-) ....... Or resign........See I ain't fussy ;-) ......... Seriously Dave I understand why you rail against the system when examples such as this crop up. I only try to set out how I believe it works. If we understand what exactly is wrong with it then we know how best to change it . Its pretty obvious to me whats wrong with it *-) ........ Its just a reward mechanism for criminals and lawyers >:-( ......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Violet1956 Posted December 9, 2017 Share Posted December 9, 2017 teflon2 - 2017-12-08 7:05 PM What concerns me is how these "people"? finance their appeals, is it perhaps the no win no fee bottom feeding law sharks grabbing a large slice of the pie. I know I would not be able to finance an appeal in the courts. Conditional Fee arrangements were brought in under John Major's government in 1995 forming part of an attempt to reduce the legal aid bill and it has introduced a lot of bottom feeders as well as choking up the system with unmeritorious cases. Legal Aid is not as freely available as people think it is. Usually a "means" and a "merits" test has to be met before it's granted. Sometimes people qualify for legal aid if their case raises a novel point of law on the basis that it is in the public interest for the point to be decided by the courts so that others will have no need to go to law in the future, or at the very least their cases can be decided in the lower courts and they are likely to be refused a right of appeal to take the same point any further. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Violet1956 Posted December 9, 2017 Share Posted December 9, 2017 nowtelse2do - 2017-12-07 8:19 PM What's stopping the women from sueing him, then he'll have nowt (not me you understand). Dave Probably nothing is stopping the victims but if they have already received compensation from the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board (CICB), which is likely, then the CICB can claw all or part of it back. see section 109 https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/243480/9780108512117.pdf Thus there may be little point for them to do that. The better course might be to require the sum he received to be paid into the CICB's coffers unless the victims were guaranteed to get more from him than they already received from the CICB. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pelmetman Posted December 9, 2017 Share Posted December 9, 2017 Violet1956 - 2017-12-09 12:51 PM nowtelse2do - 2017-12-07 8:19 PM What's stopping the women from sueing him, then he'll have nowt (not me you understand). Dave Probably nothing is stopping the victims but if they have already received compensation from the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board (CICB), which is likely, then the CICB can claw all or part of it back. see section 109 https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/243480/9780108512117.pdf Thus there may be little point for them to do that. The better course might be to require the sum he received to be paid into the CICB's coffers unless the victims were guaranteed to get more from him than they already received from the CICB. Are any of his victims likely to have received 110k? :-| ......... Coz from my research that would be a record *-) ........ But hey that's the British Justice system for you >:-) ......... Enjoying a few more months of full board & lodging at one of her majesties pleasure parks is worse than rape 8-) .......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Violet1956 Posted December 9, 2017 Share Posted December 9, 2017 pelmetman - 2017-12-09 5:04 PM Violet1956 - 2017-12-09 12:51 PM nowtelse2do - 2017-12-07 8:19 PM What's stopping the women from sueing him, then he'll have nowt (not me you understand). Dave Probably nothing is stopping the victims but if they have already received compensation from the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board (CICB), which is likely, then the CICB can claw all or part of it back. see section 109 https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/243480/9780108512117.pdf Thus there may be little point for them to do that. The better course might be to require the sum he received to be paid into the CICB's coffers unless the victims were guaranteed to get more from him than they already received from the CICB. Are any of his victims likely to have received 110k? :-| ......... Coz from my research that would be a record *-) ........ But hey that's the British Justice system for you >:-) ......... Enjoying a few more months of full board & lodging at one of her majesties pleasure parks is worse than rape 8-) .......... You're right Dave the CICB awards don't amount to much. What is awarded is largely based on how much you and I are prepared to pay in tax. The problem with this individual seems to be there is more than one victim. Each victim would have to be cognisant that any likely reward in civil proceedings is based on his ability to pay. There may be many people due to their share of the "pie"from the crimes he committed so what is available may not even match the paltry sums they get from the CICB. It's not remotely acceptable that he should receive more from the state for his unlawful detention than victims of rape etc receive as compensation. How we address this is down to government policy. I like you would dearly wish this was addressed pronto. However I would not do away with the principle that people who are detained unlawfully should not be compensated for the loss of their liberty. At the same time victims of violent crime deserve better compensation and access to treatment to aid their recovery than they presently receive. I would be delighted if he didn't receive a penny from these damages hence I referred to the system they have in Australia. Food for thought. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pelmetman Posted December 10, 2017 Share Posted December 10, 2017 Violet1956 - 2017-12-09 5:44 PM pelmetman - 2017-12-09 5:04 PM Violet1956 - 2017-12-09 12:51 PM nowtelse2do - 2017-12-07 8:19 PM What's stopping the women from sueing him, then he'll have nowt (not me you understand). Dave Probably nothing is stopping the victims but if they have already received compensation from the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board (CICB), which is likely, then the CICB can claw all or part of it back. see section 109 https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/243480/9780108512117.pdf Thus there may be little point for them to do that. The better course might be to require the sum he received to be paid into the CICB's coffers unless the victims were guaranteed to get more from him than they already received from the CICB. Are any of his victims likely to have received 110k? :-| ......... Coz from my research that would be a record *-) ........ But hey that's the British Justice system for you >:-) ......... Enjoying a few more months of full board & lodging at one of her majesties pleasure parks is worse than rape 8-) .......... You're right Dave the CICB awards don't amount to much. What is awarded is largely based on how much you and I are prepared to pay in tax. The problem with this individual seems to be there is more than one victim. Each victim would have to be cognisant that any likely reward in civil proceedings is based on his ability to pay. There may be many people due to their share of the "pie"from the crimes he committed so what is available may not even match the paltry sums they get from the CICB. It's not remotely acceptable that he should receive more from the state for his unlawful detention than victims of rape etc receive as compensation. How we address this is down to government policy. I like you would dearly wish this was addressed pronto. However I would not do away with the principle that people who are detained unlawfully should not be compensated for the loss of their liberty. At the same time victims of violent crime deserve better compensation and access to treatment to aid their recovery than they presently receive. I would be delighted if he didn't receive a penny from these damages hence I referred to the system they have in Australia. Food for thought. Are there any signs of anything changing Pronto? :-| .......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Violet1956 Posted December 10, 2017 Share Posted December 10, 2017 pelmetman - 2017-12-10 9:31 AM Violet1956 - 2017-12-09 5:44 PM pelmetman - 2017-12-09 5:04 PM Violet1956 - 2017-12-09 12:51 PM nowtelse2do - 2017-12-07 8:19 PM What's stopping the women from sueing him, then he'll have nowt (not me you understand). Dave Probably nothing is stopping the victims but if they have already received compensation from the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board (CICB), which is likely, then the CICB can claw all or part of it back. see section 109 https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/243480/9780108512117.pdf Thus there may be little point for them to do that. The better course might be to require the sum he received to be paid into the CICB's coffers unless the victims were guaranteed to get more from him than they already received from the CICB. Are any of his victims likely to have received 110k? :-| ......... Coz from my research that would be a record *-) ........ But hey that's the British Justice system for you >:-) ......... Enjoying a few more months of full board & lodging at one of her majesties pleasure parks is worse than rape 8-) .......... You're right Dave the CICB awards don't amount to much. What is awarded is largely based on how much you and I are prepared to pay in tax. The problem with this individual seems to be there is more than one victim. Each victim would have to be cognisant that any likely reward in civil proceedings is based on his ability to pay. There may be many people due to their share of the "pie"from the crimes he committed so what is available may not even match the paltry sums they get from the CICB. It's not remotely acceptable that he should receive more from the state for his unlawful detention than victims of rape etc receive as compensation. How we address this is down to government policy. I like you would dearly wish this was addressed pronto. However I would not do away with the principle that people who are detained unlawfully should not be compensated for the loss of their liberty. At the same time victims of violent crime deserve better compensation and access to treatment to aid their recovery than they presently receive. I would be delighted if he didn't receive a penny from these damages hence I referred to the system they have in Australia. Food for thought. Are there any signs of anything changing Pronto? :-| .......... Not that I can see. If there's a high degree of public support for it you never know it could become government policy. That's down to people like you and me telling our MP what we want to change. You could start one of those petitions on line that have to reach 10,000 for parliament to debate it. Sorry I think it's 100,000 signatures needed for a debate just looked it up on the government website. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pelmetman Posted December 10, 2017 Share Posted December 10, 2017 Violet1956 - 2017-12-10 9:38 AM pelmetman - 2017-12-10 9:31 AM Violet1956 - 2017-12-09 5:44 PM pelmetman - 2017-12-09 5:04 PM Violet1956 - 2017-12-09 12:51 PM nowtelse2do - 2017-12-07 8:19 PM What's stopping the women from sueing him, then he'll have nowt (not me you understand). Dave Probably nothing is stopping the victims but if they have already received compensation from the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board (CICB), which is likely, then the CICB can claw all or part of it back. see section 109 https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/243480/9780108512117.pdf Thus there may be little point for them to do that. The better course might be to require the sum he received to be paid into the CICB's coffers unless the victims were guaranteed to get more from him than they already received from the CICB. Are any of his victims likely to have received 110k? :-| ......... Coz from my research that would be a record *-) ........ But hey that's the British Justice system for you >:-) ......... Enjoying a few more months of full board & lodging at one of her majesties pleasure parks is worse than rape 8-) .......... You're right Dave the CICB awards don't amount to much. What is awarded is largely based on how much you and I are prepared to pay in tax. The problem with this individual seems to be there is more than one victim. Each victim would have to be cognisant that any likely reward in civil proceedings is based on his ability to pay. There may be many people due to their share of the "pie"from the crimes he committed so what is available may not even match the paltry sums they get from the CICB. It's not remotely acceptable that he should receive more from the state for his unlawful detention than victims of rape etc receive as compensation. How we address this is down to government policy. I like you would dearly wish this was addressed pronto. However I would not do away with the principle that people who are detained unlawfully should not be compensated for the loss of their liberty. At the same time victims of violent crime deserve better compensation and access to treatment to aid their recovery than they presently receive. I would be delighted if he didn't receive a penny from these damages hence I referred to the system they have in Australia. Food for thought. Are there any signs of anything changing Pronto? :-| .......... Not that I can see. If there's a high degree of public support for it you never know it could become government policy. That's down to people like you and me telling our MP what we want to change. You could start one of those petitions on line that have to reach 10,000 for parliament to debate it. Sorry I think it's 100,000 signatures needed for a debate just looked it up on the government website. You word it, and I'll support it ;-) ......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Violet1956 Posted December 10, 2017 Share Posted December 10, 2017 pelmetman - 2017-12-10 10:54 AM Violet1956 - 2017-12-10 9:38 AM pelmetman - 2017-12-10 9:31 AM Violet1956 - 2017-12-09 5:44 PM pelmetman - 2017-12-09 5:04 PM Violet1956 - 2017-12-09 12:51 PM nowtelse2do - 2017-12-07 8:19 PM What's stopping the women from sueing him, then he'll have nowt (not me you understand). Dave Probably nothing is stopping the victims but if they have already received compensation from the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board (CICB), which is likely, then the CICB can claw all or part of it back. see section 109 https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/243480/9780108512117.pdf Thus there may be little point for them to do that. The better course might be to require the sum he received to be paid into the CICB's coffers unless the victims were guaranteed to get more from him than they already received from the CICB. Are any of his victims likely to have received 110k? :-| ......... Coz from my research that would be a record *-) ........ But hey that's the British Justice system for you >:-) ......... Enjoying a few more months of full board & lodging at one of her majesties pleasure parks is worse than rape 8-) .......... You're right Dave the CICB awards don't amount to much. What is awarded is largely based on how much you and I are prepared to pay in tax. The problem with this individual seems to be there is more than one victim. Each victim would have to be cognisant that any likely reward in civil proceedings is based on his ability to pay. There may be many people due to their share of the "pie"from the crimes he committed so what is available may not even match the paltry sums they get from the CICB. It's not remotely acceptable that he should receive more from the state for his unlawful detention than victims of rape etc receive as compensation. How we address this is down to government policy. I like you would dearly wish this was addressed pronto. However I would not do away with the principle that people who are detained unlawfully should not be compensated for the loss of their liberty. At the same time victims of violent crime deserve better compensation and access to treatment to aid their recovery than they presently receive. I would be delighted if he didn't receive a penny from these damages hence I referred to the system they have in Australia. Food for thought. Are there any signs of anything changing Pronto? :-| .......... Not that I can see. If there's a high degree of public support for it you never know it could become government policy. That's down to people like you and me telling our MP what we want to change. You could start one of those petitions on line that have to reach 10,000 for parliament to debate it. Sorry I think it's 100,000 signatures needed for a debate just looked it up on the government website. You word it, and I'll support it ;-) ......... You've got more time than me Dave. Some of us have work to do y'now. I already allow myself to be distracted too much by this forum. Wording a petition is not something you can just rattle off. Advice on how to do it here- https://home.38degrees.org.uk/ Good luck! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pelmetman Posted December 10, 2017 Share Posted December 10, 2017 Violet1956 - 2017-12-10 11:18 AM ] You've got more time than me Dave. Some of us have work to do y'now. I already allow myself to be distracted too much by this forum. Wording a petition is not something you can just rattle off. Advice on how to do it here- https://home.38degrees.org.uk/ Good luck! Indeed I do ;-) ....... But its your trade that allows these offensive oikes to bleed the UK taxpayer :-| ......... Dontcha think a bit of payback is due? *-) ............ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Violet1956 Posted December 11, 2017 Share Posted December 11, 2017 pelmetman - 2017-12-10 10:33 PM Violet1956 - 2017-12-10 11:18 AM ] You've got more time than me Dave. Some of us have work to do y'now. I already allow myself to be distracted too much by this forum. Wording a petition is not something you can just rattle off. Advice on how to do it here- https://home.38degrees.org.uk/ Good luck! Indeed I do ;-) ....... But its your trade that allows these offensive oikes to bleed the UK taxpayer :-| ......... Dontcha think a bit of payback is due? *-) ............ I'm not a member of parliament, nor have I ever been a civil servant so I am afraid I have to say you're wrong again Dave. I'm doing my bit already by putting you right on a number of issues where you have swallowed whole the rubbish you've read in "the wail". ;-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pelmetman Posted December 13, 2017 Share Posted December 13, 2017 Violet1956 - 2017-12-11 8:52 AM pelmetman - 2017-12-10 10:33 PM Violet1956 - 2017-12-10 11:18 AM ] You've got more time than me Dave. Some of us have work to do y'now. I already allow myself to be distracted too much by this forum. Wording a petition is not something you can just rattle off. Advice on how to do it here- https://home.38degrees.org.uk/ Good luck! Indeed I do ;-) ....... But its your trade that allows these offensive oikes to bleed the UK taxpayer :-| ......... Dontcha think a bit of payback is due? *-) ............ I'm not a member of parliament, nor have I ever been a civil servant so I am afraid I have to say you're wrong again Dave. I'm doing my bit already by putting you right on a number of issues where you have swallowed whole the rubbish you've read in "the wail". ;-) So Civitas is wrong? *-) .......... http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5173289/Soft-justice-sees-just-one-three-thugs-imprisoned.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Violet1956 Posted December 13, 2017 Share Posted December 13, 2017 pelmetman - 2017-12-13 8:47 AM Violet1956 - 2017-12-11 8:52 AM pelmetman - 2017-12-10 10:33 PM Violet1956 - 2017-12-10 11:18 AM ] You've got more time than me Dave. Some of us have work to do y'now. I already allow myself to be distracted too much by this forum. Wording a petition is not something you can just rattle off. Advice on how to do it here- https://home.38degrees.org.uk/ Good luck! Indeed I do ;-) ....... But its your trade that allows these offensive oikes to bleed the UK taxpayer :-| ......... Dontcha think a bit of payback is due? *-) ............ I'm not a member of parliament, nor have I ever been a civil servant so I am afraid I have to say you're wrong again Dave. I'm doing my bit already by putting you right on a number of issues where you have swallowed whole the rubbish you've read in "the wail". ;-) So Civitas is wrong? *-) .......... http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5173289/Soft-justice-sees-just-one-three-thugs-imprisoned.html Wrong about what Dave? I've found the report to which the DM Article refers- http://www.civitas.org.uk/content/files/whogoestoprison.pdf In which amongst other things it is said -"Violence against the person accounts for 13% of those sent to prison. In 2016, just under 12,000 received a custodial sentence for offences in this category. (Over 17,000 non-custodial sentences were imposed on those convicted of violence against the person – 59% of the total.) I can't see anything in the report to support what the Daily Mail says it reveals e.g. that violent thugs aren't being sent to jail. There's no detail in the Civitas report of the degree of violence involved in any of the offences of violence they counted. As we all know there are degrees of violence along a very wide spectrum. Perhaps you should read the full report and and tell me where it supports what the Daily Mail says. Nevertheless it is an excellent report from Civitas which appears to address the myths bandied about that there are many people in prison who didn't deserve to go there. I wouldn't argue with that and I never have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pelmetman Posted December 13, 2017 Share Posted December 13, 2017 Violet1956 - 2017-12-13 9:49 AM Wrong about what Dave? I've found the report to which the DM Article refers- http://www.civitas.org.uk/content/files/whogoestoprison.pdf In which amongst other things it is said -"Violence against the person accounts for 13% of those sent to prison. In 2016, just under 12,000 received a custodial sentence for offences in this category. (Over 17,000 non-custodial sentences were imposed on those convicted of violence against the person – 59% of the total.) So more than half ie 17,000 getting away with thuggery is OK? *-) ........ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Violet1956 Posted December 13, 2017 Share Posted December 13, 2017 pelmetman - 2017-12-13 1:55 PM Violet1956 - 2017-12-13 9:49 AM Wrong about what Dave? I've found the report to which the DM Article refers- http://www.civitas.org.uk/content/files/whogoestoprison.pdf In which amongst other things it is said -"Violence against the person accounts for 13% of those sent to prison. In 2016, just under 12,000 received a custodial sentence for offences in this category. (Over 17,000 non-custodial sentences were imposed on those convicted of violence against the person – 59% of the total.) So more than half ie 17,000 getting away with thuggery is OK? *-) ........ We don't know what the 17,000 did is my point Dave. Offences against the person can include common assault where there is no injury at all. Sometimes an offender is no thug but someone who for one moment in their life lost their temper and assaulted someone with just a slap which caused no injury. There's no mention of "thuggery" in the Civitas report nor does it give any idea of the gravity of the offences they are talking about. You don't get the full picture from the DM article and I question whether the writer was justified in their assertions having read the report myself. If you haven't read it yet I recommend you do. They rightly dispel what I believe is a myth i.e. that there are people in prison who didn't deserve to be there. They make no point about who deserved to go to prison and yet didn't. You may be right that more people deserve prison terms than receive them but this report does not provide any information that supports that view/impression. I recommended a while back that people have a go on the government website "you be the judge" where examples are given and you can decide what sentence you would think appropriate. Have a go and see what you come up with. Here it is again http://ybtj.justice.gov.uk/ Veronica Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bulletguy Posted December 13, 2017 Share Posted December 13, 2017 Violet1956 - 2017-12-13 4:30 PM pelmetman - 2017-12-13 1:55 PM Violet1956 - 2017-12-13 9:49 AM Wrong about what Dave? I've found the report to which the DM Article refers- http://www.civitas.org.uk/content/files/whogoestoprison.pdf In which amongst other things it is said -"Violence against the person accounts for 13% of those sent to prison. In 2016, just under 12,000 received a custodial sentence for offences in this category. (Over 17,000 non-custodial sentences were imposed on those convicted of violence against the person – 59% of the total.) So more than half ie 17,000 getting away with thuggery is OK? *-) ........ We don't know what the 17,000 did is my point Dave. Offences against the person can include common assault where there is no injury at all. Sometimes an offender is no thug but someone who for one moment in their life lost their temper and assaulted someone with just a slap which caused no injury. There's no mention of "thuggery" in the Civitas report nor does it give any idea of the gravity of the offences they are talking about. You don't get the full picture from the DM article and I question whether the writer was justified in their assertions having read the report myself. If you haven't read it yet I recommend you do. They rightly dispel what I believe is a myth i.e. that there are people in prison who didn't deserve to be there. They make no point about who deserved to go to prison and yet didn't. You may be right that more people deserve prison terms than receive them but this report does not provide any information that supports that view/impression. I recommended a while back that people have a go on the government website "you be the judge" where examples are given and you can decide what sentence you would think appropriate. Have a go and see what you come up with. Here it is again http://ybtj.justice.gov.uk/ Veronica Interesting link Veronica. I did the murder case and sentenced correctly. If interested in those type of cases it's worth watching real life crime 'docs' on CBS Reality. Mostly all are US cases but all have one thing in common......there are some seriously screwed up minds in that country! Absolute nutjobs. One i watched last night, two teenagers beat up and murdered one of their friends (nice 'mates' eh?) at his home when his parents were out, just for a few dollars in a safe. They got picked up by police the following day. One pleaded guilty so got life without parole, the other denied it opting to go for trial but he was the worst possible type for any defence council....cocky, arrogant and no remorse. So he got sentenced to death. Craziest part about it all? The lad they murdered was due to join the Navy in two weeks so had they waited until then they could have robbed an empty house and just get sent down for a lesser charge of robbery. Idiots......certainly not the brightest bulbs in the box. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pelmetman Posted December 14, 2017 Share Posted December 14, 2017 Violet1956 - 2017-12-13 4:30 PM I recommended a while back that people have a go on the government website "you be the judge" where examples are given and you can decide what sentence you would think appropriate. Have a go and see what you come up with. Here it is again http://ybtj.justice.gov.uk/ Veronica I did ;-) .......... But they didn't have a hanging choice >:-( ........ Best I could do was 30 years *-) ....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pelmetman Posted December 14, 2017 Share Posted December 14, 2017 Violet1956 - 2017-12-13 4:30 PM We don't know what the 17,000 did is my point Dave. Offences against the person can include common assault where there is no injury at all. Sometimes an offender is no thug but someone who for one moment in their life lost their temper and assaulted someone with just a slap which caused no injury. There's no mention of "thuggery" in the Civitas report nor does it give any idea of the gravity of the offences they are talking about. How many folk do you know who have ended up in court for common assault as a first offence? *-) ........ It appears to me you have to have at least 15 previous convictions before our so called(SPIT) "Justice" system even considers you a wrong'un >:-( ....... ...and here's a perfect example of your loony liberal hand wringing concerning knife crime :-| ...... "A third of those convicted of possession go to jail".........Well whoopee do.......that means two thirds are roaming the streets >:-) ........ https://fullfact.org/crime/how-many-those-convicted-knife-crime-go-prison/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Violet1956 Posted December 14, 2017 Share Posted December 14, 2017 pelmetman - 2017-12-14 5:59 PM Violet1956 - 2017-12-13 4:30 PM We don't know what the 17,000 did is my point Dave. Offences against the person can include common assault where there is no injury at all. Sometimes an offender is no thug but someone who for one moment in their life lost their temper and assaulted someone with just a slap which caused no injury. There's no mention of "thuggery" in the Civitas report nor does it give any idea of the gravity of the offences they are talking about. How many folk do you know who have ended up in court for common assault as a first offence? *-) ........ It appears to me you have to have at least 15 previous convictions before our so called(SPIT) "Justice" system even considers you a wrong'un >:-( ....... I am afraid your first question is impossible to answer Dave. It is 20 years since I had any experience of what goes on in the criminal courts. Mind you I saw a good few charges of common assault back in the day that really amounted to ABH. I have some concerns about charging decisions and the plea bargaining that goes on. I wonder if it is far too easy for the CPS to accept a guilty plea to a lesser offence than spend loads of money on pursuing a more serious charge. If you let the bean counters rule in too many charging decisions then justice is compromised. As for your conclusion that someone has to have at least 15 previous before they are considered to be a wrong un, all I can add is that the Civitas report doesn't provide sufficient detail of the seriousness of the previous convictions of those who were eventually sent to jail because of their repeat offending. You appear very angry/concerned about what you consider to be sentencing decisions that are too lenient. Offences of murder aside, have you looked at all of the examples on the goverment website? When I went through all of them I was harsher on some and softer on others. It's a big judgement call in every case and I am glad that I don't have the same responsibility as the judges have in making these decisions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pelmetman Posted December 14, 2017 Share Posted December 14, 2017 Violet1956 - 2017-12-14 6:30 PM pelmetman - 2017-12-14 5:59 PM Violet1956 - 2017-12-13 4:30 PM We don't know what the 17,000 did is my point Dave. Offences against the person can include common assault where there is no injury at all. Sometimes an offender is no thug but someone who for one moment in their life lost their temper and assaulted someone with just a slap which caused no injury. There's no mention of "thuggery" in the Civitas report nor does it give any idea of the gravity of the offences they are talking about. How many folk do you know who have ended up in court for common assault as a first offence? *-) ........ It appears to me you have to have at least 15 previous convictions before our so called(SPIT) "Justice" system even considers you a wrong'un >:-( ....... I am afraid your first question is impossible to answer Dave. It is 20 years since I had any experience of what goes on in the criminal courts. Mind you I saw a good few charges of common assault back in the day that really amounted to ABH. I have some concerns about charging decisions and the plea bargaining that goes on. I wonder if it is far too easy for the CPS to accept a guilty plea to a lesser offence than spend loads of money on pursuing a more serious charge. If you let the bean counters rule in too many charging decisions then justice is compromised. So you admit our justice system is now biased towards the criminals, in order to save money for the justice system? :-| ............. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Violet1956 Posted December 14, 2017 Share Posted December 14, 2017 pelmetman - 2017-12-14 6:35 PM Violet1956 - 2017-12-14 6:30 PM pelmetman - 2017-12-14 5:59 PM Violet1956 - 2017-12-13 4:30 PM We don't know what the 17,000 did is my point Dave. Offences against the person can include common assault where there is no injury at all. Sometimes an offender is no thug but someone who for one moment in their life lost their temper and assaulted someone with just a slap which caused no injury. There's no mention of "thuggery" in the Civitas report nor does it give any idea of the gravity of the offences they are talking about. How many folk do you know who have ended up in court for common assault as a first offence? *-) ........ It appears to me you have to have at least 15 previous convictions before our so called(SPIT) "Justice" system even considers you a wrong'un >:-( ....... I am afraid your first question is impossible to answer Dave. It is 20 years since I had any experience of what goes on in the criminal courts. Mind you I saw a good few charges of common assault back in the day that really amounted to ABH. I have some concerns about charging decisions and the plea bargaining that goes on. I wonder if it is far too easy for the CPS to accept a guilty plea to a lesser offence than spend loads of money on pursuing a more serious charge. If you let the bean counters rule in too many charging decisions then justice is compromised. So you admit our justice system is now biased towards the criminals, in order to save money for the justice system? :-| ............. It's not just my justice system Dave it is yours too. You are the one who seems to worry most about the cost of cases before all courts. What is the government supposed to do to make you happy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
derek pringle Posted December 15, 2017 Share Posted December 15, 2017 Hi, I hope we see the best of British Justice when the people responsible for the house fire in Manchester this week, murdering little babies. I find it hard to justify keeping responsible for the likes of this crime to be kept in prison for many many years watching their tv's and pursuing certain hobbies when we have the social problems we have that can easily be eased by funding.I wonder what the cost of keeping one high security prisoner in jail for 20/25yrs would do for old people and vulnerable. derek Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pelmetman Posted December 17, 2017 Share Posted December 17, 2017 derek pringle - 2017-12-15 12:38 PM Hi, I hope we see the best of British Justice when the people responsible for the house fire in Manchester this week, murdering little babies. I find it hard to justify keeping responsible for the likes of this crime to be kept in prison for many many years watching their tv's and pursuing certain hobbies when we have the social problems we have that can easily be eased by funding.I wonder what the cost of keeping one high security prisoner in jail for 20/25yrs would do for old people and vulnerable. derek The cost could easily be reduced to the purchase of some Chatham Hemp :-| ........ But some folk feel the need to polish their halos, by keeping these lowlife in comfort for a few years then releasing them again .........and in some instances to murder again......47 needless murders in the last 10 years alone *-) ......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.